It seems to me that these religious fanatics are only willing to sacrifice some one else's life to prove their faith.

I think that's very often true, but I bet these nimwits seriously believed they could cure their kid by asking Jesus or whatever.

I do always think it's curious that all the dumb Muslims who get fitted for bomb vests to go blow themselves up and murder other people for Allah don't wonder why the people fitting them for the bomb vest don't shove them out of the way so they can get to those supposed 72 virgins themselves. Dawkins mentions this in The God Delusion, which I'm finally reading now.

That expression, "Everything happens for a reason," has always irritated me. Everything does NOT happen for a reason. For good or bad, lots of things happen for no reason whatsoever.

A tragedy.

This happened for a reason as they didn't get her medical help.

Amy - false dichotomy.

I believe in God. I do not believe in religion.

God as watchmaker. Creator. God does not intervene in human affairs.

Religion is a false creation of humans in an attempt to appease what they think is a vengeful and angry god. It's also a creation of the token intelligent humans to control the bad and destructive behaviors of the multitudes of stupids.

Some people find comfort in prayer and religion, and I would never condemn that provided it's in conjuction with medical treatment.

That being said, my question to these folks is; If God is all powerful and all knowing, then doesn't he inspire doctors and pharma researchers the same way he inspires clergy? And aren't you failing to partake of his generosity and benevolence by ignoring them, and medical treatment?

Brian says that he believes in a god who is not involved in human affairs. For all intents and purposes, such a belief is then irrelevant in day-to-day life. Fair enough.

It is human nature to seek patterns in events - just look at anyone who buys lottery tickets, and how they select their numbers. This is the basis of religion: the need to explain the random events that happen in life.

There is another reason for religion. Thinking that some superhuman being takes a personal interest in your doings, and that unpleasant events have some purpose - this is comforting. Some author described religious belief as basking in the warm firelight, and his conversion to athiesm as stepping out into a cold winter day. It was much better said than that, but I've been unable to find the quote again...

This reminds me of the joke about the man who has been notified that his house is going to be flooded and he needs to get out of the house. He says no I don’t have to, God is going to take care of me. Then the flood starts to rise and a sheriff comes along and tells him to get out. The man says no, God is going to save me. So, the floods continue to rise, and he climbs on top of the house. A boat comes along and he’s told to climb into the boat. He says, no, no , God is going to save me. Finally, a helicopter comes along and they lower the net to rescue him. The man says, no, no, God is going to save me! Well, the man drowns and goes to heaven. When he gets to heaven he says to God, "why didn’t you save me?" God says, "I sent the sheriff, I sent a boat, I sent a helicopter, what more did you want me to do?"

People do sick things in the name of religion. It is really just an excuse for their bad behavior. I do not believe in telling others what religion to be or even to believe in God. I am a believer and my faith is something I feel very strongly about. I do not expect God to part the Great South Bay for me or stop the next hurricane. You can believe that my faith in God is irrational and based on nothing. Yes, I was raised to believe in God but I was also raised to believe in Santa Claus. I only outgrew one of them. I'm not so sure about the Bible and I don't think God created it. It was written by men and for centuries interpreted in ways that have not always helped man. I respect the right of people to find whatever comfort in religion or religious traditions as long as they don't inflict them on me or hurt others in the name of it. And I respect your right to believe there is no God and I will never ridicule that just as I think you should respect my right to believe in God and not ridicule me.

Just watched that movie/documentary-thing Religulous http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0815241/
by Bill Mahr

It was cut together to be funny, certainly. But also informative.

Jesus's story was used by an Indian religion 1000 years before him, born on Dec 25, healed the sick & blind, born of a virgin.

Mormons believe you'll get your own planet in the afterlife.

Everyone they interviewed about Islam ... no no no it's a peaceful religion. We like women, we really do. No no no, peaceful.

Crazy man crazy!

Amy, would you clarify what you mean by "evidence"?

People do sick things in the name of religion, but it doesn't make all people who believe in something evil or even stupid. I do believe in God but will never force my faith down anyone's throat or justify any bad behavior in the name of God. I respect your right to not believe in God and will never ridicule you for that or try to convince you otherwise. My faith is for me only and while I respect your right, I would like to think that you respect my right to believe whether you agree or not.

We all agree that providing accepted medical treatment for your kid is a requirement of being a parent. Why knock the religious parents? Aren't parents who just don't take their kid to the Dr cause they can't be bothered to give a shit just as bad? They are both bad parents. God has nothing to do with it.

You're really reaching if you want to claim there's no God because he doesn't regrow limbs. Natural laws were made for a reason. Religion is a human construct and imperfect, although it has great intentions. God is not imperfect. Inscrutable, yes. Just because he doesn't bow and preform your every wish does not mean he does not exist.

I was raised a Christian but was pretty much a non believer by the time that I was 12. However for the most part I follow a Judeo-Christian philosophy in my treatment of my fellow man. My mother is one of those who professes a belief in God without ever showing any signs of true belief. She once told me that her concept of god and what you can ask for in prayer came from an Anglican priest who had been a missionary in Japan in the 1930’s He was interred by the Japanese for the duration of World War II. He said the only legitimate prayer to God, and the only one that is ever answered, is a prayer for strength. "The strength to endure what you need to endure and to act when you need to act in any given situation.”

Mormons believe you'll get your own planet in the afterlife. MeganNJ

No they dont, that is the dumbest misconstruction ever.

They belive you get your own universe

Religion is like cooking:

Start with a human (gender non-specific) preferable young.
Gentle remove logic, reason, free will and scientific fact.

Add;
5 cups: piousness
5 cups: my god can beat up your god
1/2 Gal: abhorrent dislike for all other beliefs
2 cups: guilt
3 cups: shame
4 cups: racism
4 cups: misogyny
3 cups: absolute conviction
4 cups: worship of a figment of your imagination
dash: salt and pepper (to taste)

Bake at 350* for 2000yrs, top it with a heaping pile of indigent people, pestilence, war, starvation, disease, terror, rape, extortion and murder.

Serves 6.5 billion people

SURGEON GENERAL WARNING: Has no nutritional value, causes mental retardation, ulcers, rectal bleeding and a devout hatred for anyone different than you. If you show signs of any of these symptoms induce vomiting and smash head against a hard surface until logic and reason reappear.

No they dont, that is the dumbest misconstruction ever.

Well thanks, Lujlp

I believe there is a God, I think it more likely than that there is not. I am not certain, which is why I say, "I believe" instead of "I know". What I don't have much faith in, is chance.

Moreover, I think it needs to be said that secularism has done a shitload worse to humanity than any religion ever has, even if you include that vicious horse shit known as Islam.

Adolf Hitler (forget that Indiana Jones cultic crap), Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, King Jong Il, Kim Sung Il, Robespierre, I could keep rattling off names if you'd like, I haven't covered even a tiny part of the horrors done to human beings by those who espoused radical secularism, Where there is no spiritual god, the state becomes god, and if the spiritual is not perfect and its adherents are capable of their own flaws, failings, and horrors...well the state is all to real, and exerts direct control over untold very real horrors perpretrated by equally real followers.

Hatred & violence are the province of HUMANS, not just "religious humans".

As far as health issues and what not, the way I see it, "call on God, but row away from the rocks."

Frankly I like Christianity as a philosophy more than a religion, certainly offers more than brutal faiths such as Islam.

Robert,

Dare I say, "Amen".

That expression, "Everything happens for a reason," has always irritated me. Everything does NOT happen for a reason. For good or bad, lots of things happen for no reason whatsoever.

Everything does happen for a reason. The girl died because she had a disease for which she didn't get medical help. She didn't get medical help because her parents were dumbasses.

Jesus's story was used by an Indian religion 1000 years before him, born on Dec 25, healed the sick & blind, born of a virgin.

Read your Joseph Campbell. Almost all religions mythologies have a virgin birth theme and a resurrection theme; in fact, several themes in Christian religious doctrine are present in other, earlier, religions (including Egypt where the Israelites were held as slaves for many years and probably picked up a few stories).

Religion is a human construct and imperfect
-momof4

Does this mean your no longer against gay marrige as it is only forbiden by religion

Well thanks, Lujlp - MeganNJ

Your welcome, it wasnt your mistake, it was Mayhers

secularism has done a shitload worse to humanity than any religion ever has, even if you include that vicious horse shit known as Islam.

Cleanup in aisle five!

Can somebody please address this one? Deadline, tough day already, plus I just got four studies I need to read and digest.

Amy - it's not secularism per se, but religion has not been the cause of more wars or death than anything else, contrary to the beliefs of the militant atheists.

Vox Day did a whole bit on it at his blog, but I don't have the time to search it out.

Turns out that more people have been killed in the name of the state and in the name of God.

People and countries fight over -stuff-.... land, gold, oil, water...

Religion, political ideals, morals, patriotism, etc. are just the excuse to drum up the masses.

> That expression, "Everything
> happens for a reason," has
> always irritated me.

That was a funny line in Caddyshack, though, where Ty and Danny are out on the back nine, swinging at long ones blindfolded: "There's a force in the Universe that makes things happen."

> I believe in God. I do not
> believe in religion.

They're very much the same thing. You're just pretending to be a bitter loner again. If you claim to believe in supernatural forces, many sensible people will disregard details of the cosmology you're so eager to share.

> People do sick things in the
> name of religion. It is really
> just an excuse for their bad
> behavior.

So is atheism, nowadays. Everybody's looking for an excuse to be an asshole.

> Natural laws were made
> for a reason.

And what reason was that? Do not fail to address this matter in the clearest possible terms.

> He said the only legitimate
> prayer to God, and the only one
> that is ever answered, is a
> prayer for strength.

I like you, Izzy.

> I think it needs to be said that
> secularism has done a shitload
> worse to humanity than any
> religion ever has

They are not directly comparable quantities, as each depends on the other by definition. Human nature's got some bad points, and they've all found full expression in the church at one time or another. But as Hrissikopoulos once noted, religion is our first draft of science and art and administration. We've learned to do better since then… Yet even as graduate students hone their theses with Microsoft Word, they shouldn't deny that they once enjoyed drawing with Crayola crayons.

> Read your Joseph Campbell.

Never. Not for all the tea in China. Not for all the gold in Fort Knox. I hate that guy.

> Does this mean your no longer
> against gay marrige as it is only
> forbiden by religion

I "forbid" it too, and I'll spit in the eye of anyone who calls me religious.

More, per Bradley

> Thinking that some superhuman
> being takes a personal interest in
> your doings, and that unpleasant
> events have some purpose - this is
> comforting.

This is really important. Maybe Marx coined the phrase "opiate of the masses" with a condescending snigger, but it's true that to be a human is to be in pain, and religious is anodyne.

Maybe people who want to be dismissive about religion aren't responsible for making that pain go away, or even for acknowledging the pain of others in an intimate way. But they'd get much more bang for their persuasive buck if they'd show that they understand just how dark life can be.

Otherwise, perhaps they shouldn't be so patronizing. We're talking about intimate stuff, after all.

Religion is anodyne.

Fuck typos— I want credit for two good comments before lunch on a Monday.

I think it needs to be said that secularism has done a shitload worse to humanity than any religion ever has....

If you're going to blame religion for all the evils committed in its name, you've got to give it credit for all the good done in its name as well.

All the hospitals, orphanages, charities, soup kitchens, abolitionist movements, and shelters; every random act of kindness, every little old lady helped across the street, and every time someone stopped and did something nice for a fellow human being just because the Bible said "do unto others...."

He said the only legitimate prayer to God, and the only one that is ever answered, is a prayer for strength.

Nice.

"Does this mean your no longer against gay marrige as it is only forbiden by religion"

No, we've been over this. There are plenty of non-religious reasons to not give gays marriage. I feel no need to rehash on an unrelated thread.

Natural laws run the universe. Whether or not God reaches in and intervenes is debatable based on your worldview and life experiences, but the day-to-day grind is managed by natural laws. Cut off a limb, it's gone unless you're a frog or octopus or some lizards. Step off a roof, you fall to the ground. That sort of thing. We do all agree there are natural laws, right? I don't think anyone believes God reaches down and pulls things down instead of gravity.

Is God present in our universe or not?

If your going to argue "natural laws" in gay marrige you'd have to argue against all marrige as humans are not a monogomus species, and youd have to find a reasonable explination for homosexual behavior in lower mammals

>>He said the only legitimate prayer to God, and the only one that is ever answered, is a prayer for strength.

Isabel1130,
I'm with Conan. Nice one.

All the hospitals,(tax shelters)
orphanages,(sex toy buffets)
charities,(raising money to defend child molesters)
soup kitchens,(http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103422/?searchterm=Starvin'+Marvin+in+Space){55 seconds onward}
abolitionist movements,(first abolitonists were atheists)

every random act of kindness, every little old lady helped across the street, and every time someone stopped and did something nice for a fellow human being just because the Bible said "do unto others...."
Or is it becuase most people instictvly sek to help eachother as do most other mamillian species.

You think hyenas work together becuase 2000 yrs ago the hyena god impregnated a virgin hyena and he went forth and spread to all hyenas the will of the hyena god?

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103422/?searchterm=Starvin'+Marvin+in+Space

Dont know why the link didnt work

"The job of this prayer circle is simple: pray to God to restore the amputated legs of this deserving person. I do not mean to pray for a team of renowned surgeons to somehow graft the legs of a cadaver onto the soldier, nor for a team of renowned scientists to craft mechanical legs for him..."

Why would it not count for the person to receive new legs through medical intervention? I would totally count that as an answer to the prayer. Praying for the legs to spontaneously grow back is just...stupid. Just as stupid as not taking your daughter to the doctor for an easily treatable problem, resulting in her death.

And I will be extremely honest here - 90% of the reason I believe in God is because I want to. Personally, I think the alternative really sucks. I prefer my life to have meaning.

K If you choose to believe in something, you don't really believe it, do you? I mean, if you could just as well choose not to, then it's not like you're compelled by anything but a need for "meaning".

"90% of the reason I believe in God is because I want to. Personally, I think the alternative really sucks. I prefer my life to have meaning."

Can't YOU give your life meaning? Can't you decide what you WANT it to mean, and then just do it? Alternatively, if God gives your life meaning, what meaning is that? Especially if you admit that 90% of the reason you believe in God is because you want to.

Crid, I would say choosing to believe something is exactly what makes it belief as opposed to knowledge of fact.

PJ agrees! There's a name for believers like you: We're called "atheists".

>>Why would it not count for the person to receive new legs through medical intervention?

Karen,
Fair or not, the leg question is generally an impertinent demand for objective evidence of a miracle.

The subjective certainty of a believer is not the issue here.

Will God be impressed by your conditional response? Will you tell him, upon your passage through the Pearly Ones, that it coulda gone either way, but thanks for inviting me and where are the Hors d'Oeuvres?

"Amy, would you clarify what you mean by "evidence"?"

It can be anything, physical or non physical, which happens to be credible. It can be Madoff's personal guarantee during his hey day that you will receive a 10 percent rate of return every single year. Many smart people funneled billions of dollars to Madoff based on this "evidence", Madoff presented to them.

But Jesus was a lot smarter than Madoff. He promised nothing in our life time but he promised everything after we died. HIS words are "evidence" for HIS followers.

This is a fool proof scheme million times better than pyramid scheme as dead people never really need anything and they usually don't talk.

Isabelle. I really liked your post. And Momof4's comment at the end (first posting).

People who treat God and prayer like a Santa Claus figure who waves a magic wand and makes everything better will find themselves continually disappointed – which defeats the purpose of praying (as I understand it to be). It keeps one in a state of helplessness in life which causes more pain and suffering. “If I pray hard enough, and God loves me enough or more than everyone else, I’ll get my legs back”. It’s a little insulting if you think about it.

If I lost a limb or two, I would need to find acceptance with what is, and the willingness to move forward with dignity under those circumstances. *But that too would still require certain actions and choices on my part*.

When I pray, it’s for the strength and willingness to see my life lessons or circumstances for what they are and the ability to move forward and to be thankful for each of my life’s blessings. When I pray *about* other people (never for other people - amputees or not), my intentions are the same.

For me, God has given me everything I will ever need the day I was born. The rest is up to me.

I am really sad to hear about that little girl.

People who treat God and prayer like a Santa Claus figure who waves a magic wand and makes everything better will find themselves continually disappointed – which defeats the purpose of praying (as I understand it to be). It keeps one in a state of helplessness in life which causes more pain and suffering. “If I pray hard enough, and God loves me enough or more than everyone else, I’ll get my legs back”. It’s a little insulting if you think about it - Feebie

So I take it you never go to church then, cause god as santa is wht most of the sell

> million times better than
> pyramid scheme

It pains me greatly to agree with Chang, but he's on to something. As with Madoff's investors, the church's clients have to want to believe the tale from the salesman, as Karen so shamelessly concedes that she does.

"He promised nothing in our life time but he promised everything after we died. HIS words are "evidence" for HIS followers. "

This comment is not quite accurate. That is what religions say.

Loojy- Proofread. We're begging.

I try to be a good grandaughter, so I take my Nonna to mass about once a month since she no longer can drive (and she is just cute as a button - it's hard to refuse the request).

If it weren't for her, no, I wouldn't be going to Church.

Karen (or anyone like minded), the very reason that you would think the alternative really sucks is the stunted mentality that all people of faith have. The idea that your life would have no meaning, or that the afterlife has more meaning, is what allows people to murder, rape, pilfer, adjudicate with prejudice and commit suicide, all in the name of a fictious God.

Imagine killing someone because you believe in the "flying spaghetti monster" as opposed to their belief in "Oprah". Sounds stupid doesn't it! Just because you were taught a fairy tale your whole life doesn't make it true. Remember that scientology is also a recognized religion. I'm sure you think their crazy for there belief in such a ridiculous notion.

All religious faiths have spent enormous amounts of time and money trying to convert everyone else to there "God". Hebrews believe their the chosen ones, Christians will tell you that you must accept Jesus as your saviour or burn in hell, Muslims believe you must convert or be killed etc... They can't all be correct so it stands to reason that there all wrong.

This notion that atheists have no morality or moral compass is garbage. When an atheist gives of their time or money it's based solely on the right thing to do. Not because they've been guilted into it or fear what "God" may think of them. They give regardless of gender, creed, sexual orientation or religion. They don't do it in a backhanded way in order to convert someone to their belief system. And they sure as hell don't do it to score points with their imaginary friend.

Knowing that my short time on this planet to make a differance is all I have, I make the most out of it everyday. The knowledge that the small differences I make are helping people is the "alternative" that I seek. If a irrational belief in heaven makes you sleep better at night good for you, I sleep better at night knowing I've done good things without regard to my "ticket to the afterlife", assured in the knowledge there isn't one.

Ed, you're way off. I do not have a stunted mentality because I believe in God. I also do not use my belief in God or faith as an excuse to treat people poorly. I also do not think that some who does not beleive in God lacks morals. I know some atheists who are very good people, better than some Catholics and Jews I happen to know. My faith does not mean I believe I am better than you in any way. My faith means I believe in something that gives me comfort, something that only I have to believe and understand. I hate discrimination whether it is by the religious zealots trying to control through their beliefs or the atheists condemning any religious beliefs because they do not share a faith.

Ed, that's a pretty wild leap there from seeking meaning in life to rape and murder. But I guess you have your little stereotype of all non-atheists as fundamentalist nut cases.

I think a lot of the atheists on this blog are very intelligent - but I'm sorry, there's very little about your philosophy that would fill me with joy. Let me explain what I mean by "the alternative sucks":

1. In 50 years if not less, I'll be dead. Since there is no God or afterlife, at this point I cease to exist. Even if I've spent my life helping people and spreading kindness, in 100 years every person who's life I touched will cease to exist. In 200 years, nobody will remember that I ever existed.
2. Right now there are thousands of people who have gotten away with murder, and many thousands more who have done all sorts of horrible things from rape, child abuse, cheating and stealing, who will never be charged with a crime. Since there is no afterlife and certainly no hell, there will never, ever be justice.
3. Since there is no God who loves me or cares about me, I'm on my own when life gets rough. When tragedies occur, there's no point in trying to find any meaning in my suffering or any hope for the future.

These are just the first things that come to mind. I do not want to imply that anyone else is not happy because they don't believe in God - just that I can't imagine how I would be.

> In 200 years, nobody will
> remember that I ever existed.

And I'm all, like, so what? Was your life really supposed to be such a continuing delight to humanity anyway? Who told you that it was? How did such an ambition (perhaps egotistical, indisputably vain) ever appear in your heart?

Do you know the names of all the good people alive in 1809? Should you?

In the Hitchens reader, the point is made that believers often worry terribly that there will come a day when they're extinguished: But such people never mention the 4.7 billion years of human prehistory that went down before they ever got to this planet.

Your point is an outgrowth of this argument: If your life is so important for this planet that your name should be on everyone's lips just a few generations hence, how come you weren't brought to us much, much sooner?

> there will never, ever be justice

I don't see how this argues for the existence of God. We already knew there was plenty bad news here.

> I'm on my own when life gets
> rough. When tragedies occur,
> there's no point in trying to
> find any meaning in my suffering

Why not? When you're in troubling circumstances, are you not reviewing your behavior and the external forces to see how they brought you to the rough stuff? And when life is going well, do you see specific, external evidence of the hand of God in the outcome? If so, how is your own conduct of interest?
____

Karen never got back to us on this point: Does God suspend the laws of nature on behalf of humans, or does He not?

Look, the time for full moon magic starts tonight, so Ima go do my full moon ritual, and then I'll get back to y'all. Unless I win the lottery. Then all bets are off!

I was brought up in a Christian household, and I still have issues with the hypocrisy, even after going down a different path. I don't NOT believe I god/ess, but I prefer to worship my own way, not the way someone else tells me too. Yeah there are guidelines I follow, but I don't even do ritual "by the book" anymore. I just do what feels right to me. Tonight, I'll light a fire, even though it's about 70 out right now, grab some herbs and stuff that I think go with the spell I'm gonna create, and that'll be that. Whether it works or not is totally dependent on me and how hard I concentrate (or not). The wine helps a lot! Mr. Crowley once said "Love is the law." I love my girls. If they needed medical attention, of any kind, you can bet your ass they'd get it. Mr. Lennon said "All you need is love." I agree totally. But some of those Christians, man, if you aren't the same color/have the same social standing/worship the same way as them, well, then you're just not worthy. Which is just so much bullshit, as far as I can tell.
o.O (hic)

...don't NOT believe IN...

Dang. Where's my glass?

"Adolf Hitler (forget that Indiana Jones cultic crap), Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, King Jong Il, Kim Sung Il, Robespierre, I could keep rattling off names if you'd like, I haven't covered even a tiny part of the horrors done to human beings by those who espoused radical secularism."

Wait a minute. Don't go blaming secularism. Adolf Hitler professed to be a Catholic. While we're talking about Catholics, let's talk about the Inquisition. Or the Crudades. But why restrict it the Catholics? We've got the various witch trials, we've got Osama Bin Laden . . . As you say, I could go on and on.

But actually, what all of these evil people and eras in history have in common is fanaticism. Adolf, Stalin and Osama all shared the view that it's OK to wipe out those who disagree with their point of view. Therein lies the problem.

I'm not religious myself. I don't care if anyone else is (the rest of my family is religious, in fact). But I do care when religious people try to force their views on other people, particularly if it endangers other people/s lives.

" There are plenty of non-religious reasons to not give gays marriage. I feel no need to rehash on an unrelated thread. Natural laws run the universe."

Oh please. There's nothing "natural" about marriage. "Natural" is having sex, and not necessarily sex that results in procreation. (Tell me, does your dog know he's creating puppies, or is he just horny? What's he thinking when he's humping the couch) Some animals have "gay" sex. Are they being unnatural?

Favor gay marriage or not (although I tryly don't get why people, particularly people who claim to be libertarians, can't stay the hell out of it). But spare me the "natural" shit. Sheesh.

> why people, particularly people who
> claim to be libertarians, can't stay
> the hell out of it)

The kids, mostly, and thanks for asking. We think children deserve a loving mother and a loving father.

And why is it people think marriage is such a private thing, anyway? If it was truly private, people wouldn't constantly be demanding that others take an interest in their marriages and divorces and all the rest.

PS- You right about the "'natural' shit." Nature is not always friendly.

'In 200 years, nobody will remember that I ever existed. '

How does belief in God change that?

'I'm on my own when life gets rough.'

You are now, what I mean is although you are comforted by belief, it is actually *you* who have to take action when things happen. Believing doesn't spare you the effects of illness, natural disaster etc.

' Some animals have "gay" sex. Are they being unnatural?'

What's the prevalence? 1%? 2%? So what then is the 'natural' sexual condition, the default? Tab A fits into Slot B. Is it really so hard to understand? It is unnatural in that sex is for procreation and animals who have "gay" sex won't pass on their DNA. What purpose does gay sex serve in the natural world?

"Ed, that's a pretty wild leap there from seeking meaning in life to rape and murder. But I guess you have your little stereotype of all non-atheists as fundamentalist nut cases."

Not much of a leap at all Karen. It never ceases to amaze me that moderate western believers think they can reconstruct the horrible atrocities of their chosen faith as if nothing ever happened. The Islamic movement is following in the footsteps of the Catholic/Christian Church. They just happen to use modern weaponry as opposed to hanging, burning at the stake, drowning, drawn and quartered etc... Faith based genocide has been with us since the dawn of religion itself. Also never forget when people of the Jewish faith were being systematically slaughtered by the Nazis the Arch Bishop of Germany and the Vatican stood by and did nothing (which is the one thing in common between them, they both have tried numerous times to eradicate them). Hell, Pope John Paul II apologized for there inaction, just took them almost 60yrs.to do so.

Fundamentalists (like them or not) are the ones who have it correct in regard to their religion. They follow the word, their doctrines, sacraments, rituals and faith as is spelled out to them. They know that you can’t argue with the word of God. If the word is to kill then they are not extremist, they are following the word of God and trusting in their faith. The fact you don’t think their correct doesn’t change, according to their “faith”, that they are. If you practice a faith and don’t adhere to it in a “fundamentalist” way, then you have chosen to believe in God as you wish, without regard to his word. Only in the west do people of faith think they can pick and choose what they believe, as if the bible and the word of God are to be adhered to only when it’s convenient. This by definition makes you a heretic. This qualifies you for dis-communication from whatever religion you may practice. If you don’t follow a particular religion but claim your “spiritual”, then you are a pagan.

Religion has been a burden on man for thousands of years. It has kept us in the dark, slowed our progression toward the future, killed untold numbers of people, held science and medicine in check for hundreds of years, started wars, has repressed women (and still does), was actively involved in slave trading, teaches homosexuality is an abomination etc etc etc…..

Thanks, but no thanks on the imaginary friend. I’ll just somehow have to figure out how to muddle thru my day without it…..

Back on topic....the 'there's a reason for everything' bit really irks me, has since I was a child. I was brought up in a partly Irish-Catholic family, and as far as I'm concerned, there are few types of Catholicism as neurotic as Irish Catholicism. 'God punished you' 'It's all part of God's plan' 'There's a reason for everything' and other stupid patter is running away from reality.

If you can believe that losing a loved one has some mystical purpose, then I suppose it stings less, or is supposed to, and this is why people mouth that stuff.

Crid not to quible but the 4.7 bilion year history of the earth is pre human history, not human prehistory which is only a few hunndred thousand

I hate it when you're right.

Robert said: Moreover, I think it needs to be said that secularism has done a shitload worse to humanity than any religion ever has, even if you include that vicious horse shit known as Islam.

That is wrong on two levels.

WWII succeeded in killing roughly 6% of those within the various areas of combat zones.

In contrast, the wars of the Reformation killed as much as 50% of those who lived in large areas of Europe; religious instructions were to kill as many of the "non-believers" as possible.

Secondly, you use the terms "secularism" and "religion" without consideration of their meanings. A religion is a belief system with a byzantine set of assumptions true by definition, and based on argument from authority. Every characteristic you could name about a religion is true of both communism and naziism, except one: the latter two do not rely upon a supernatural supreme being.

That is a distinction without a difference.

Religionists who blame "secularism" for the predations of 20th century totalitarians are tarring themselves with their own brush.

(Amy, you are welcome.)

++++

From Crid:> I believe in God. I do not
> believe in religion.

They're very much the same thing.

No, they are not. Buddhism is a religion, but it has no God.

Locke, Spinoza and Jefferson believed in God; none believed in religion.

Belief that some god exists, and that a specific (or any) religion offers objectively true insight into that god are entirely separate things.

This is really important. Maybe Marx coined the phrase "opiate of the masses" with a condescending snigger ...

Actually, quite the opposite.

... religion is anodyne.

You are joking, right?

Modern Christianity might be anodyne, but neither Islam nor Orthodox Judaism are. And Christianity was far from anodyne even as recently as the mid-20th century. (Read "Constantine's Sword" for a bill of particulars.)

If religion was anodyne, it wouldn't be worth the ink spilled on it.

Some country in Africa is trying to decide whether to flog a woman for wearing pants.

Yesterday in Pakistan, rampaging Muslims murdered an entire Christian family based upon a bogus report of Koran desecration.

Perhaps your definition of anodyne is different than the one in the dictionary.

Is God present in our universe or not?

Dunno. Do you?

++++

Karen said: Let me explain what I mean by "the alternative sucks":

Unfortunately, all the monotheistic religions contain Divine Direction to engage in all sorts of mayhem on behalf of the True God against all the wrong believers. Why is that? And why shouldn't the rest of us think monotheism, at its core, sucks?

"What's the prevalence? 1%? 2%?"

I'm so very glad you asked, Crella! Check out this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

Let's see -- 8% of rams, 8% of lions, 10-15% of gulls, 19% of mallards, 45% -- you read that right! -- of Asiatic elephants in activity, and 30-75% of giraffes! I could go on and on. Oh, and by the way, the article will tell you that many animals participate in same sex pairings to -- get this! -- raise young! Oh, those artificial animals, engaging in unnatural behavior! They're all going straight to hell, along with my couch-humping dog!

Nature's got just exactly nothing at all to do with same-sex marriage.

(By the way, Crid -- I agree that it's important for kids to have role models of both sexes. I do think they can have those role models in aunts, uncles, grandparents and close family friends, though. If you're a single or gay parent, I think you should make sure your kids have regular contact with solid role models of the other sex.)

Actually, I think it's this link that talks about "gay" bonding among animals to raise young. It's here somewhere among the sixteen windows open on my computer . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

Well geez, Gail, get excited. I'll make sure I don't ask you too many more questions, I'd hate for you to have a stroke...

'Nature's got just exactly nothing at all to do with same-sex marriage.'

I said *what* about same-sex marriage? I believe my question addressed your assertions about "gay" sex in the wild.

'They're all going straight to hell, along with my couch-humping dog!'

I see you equate animal awareness alongside human awareness, interesting...how long has your dog been able to understand the religious/moral implications of humping the couch?

What does animal sexuality have to do with human sexuality? Why are you bringing up dogs and elephants anyway, if what you wish to discuss is homosexual behavior in humans?

Gail, I remember hearing that same-sex behaviors among animals was more or less to establish dominance within a pack.

(At least that is what my dog's vet told me when we were having, ummm, a slight problem with this particular behavior). Maybe he was just trying to make me feel better?

:)

Ohhh I hate hijacking threads...but this is beautiful:

'They're all going straight to hell, along with my couch-humping dog!'

(laughing)

I was so amused by mine until I heard about the dominance thing...

We had a little talk. It's almost stopped.

"People do sick things in the name of religion. It is really just an excuse for their bad behavior." ~Kristen

My answer: This is true in a limited sense. The less limited sense is to cut that sentence short to: "People do sick things." You could add "in the name of the state/ideology/greed" the underlying truth is simply that people do sick things, the motivation might change, but people are good at self justification. No one is the villain in their own story.

"Why knock the religious parents?" ~momof4

My Answer: Why knock them? Because in this case, they DESERVE to be knocked, hell they deserve a helluva lot WORSE than simply being knocked. Their child suffered needlessly, died needlessly, and they watched it happen. Whether it was because they were religious and believed in faith, neglectful and didn't care, or "alternative medicine" devotees who believed more in an aqua marine crystal and the magic of cayane pepper, the facts of the case MUST lead only to contempt for those damned fools. What draws attention here...yes it is the religious angle, but there is a measure of fascination to it, you, a mother, I think could not watch your child suffer illness when you know there is a cure, a mother who can do so...its like the fascination of watching a car accident. Maybe it shouldn't be rubber necked...but there it is, try not to look.

"Everything happens for a reason," has always irritated me. Everything does NOT happen for a reason.~ Conan the Grammarian

My answer: Sure everything happens for a reason, it just doesn't have to be a GOOD reason, nor does it even have to be "divinely inspired". But nothing in nature exists in a vacuum. I don't like the meaning of that statement that implies every action is in accordance with some deity...but nothing is without cause.

"Karen (or anyone like minded), the very reason that you would think the alternative really sucks is the stunted mentality that all people of faith have. The idea that your life would have no meaning, or that the afterlife has more meaning, is what allows people to murder, rape, pilfer, adjudicate with prejudice and commit suicide, all in the name of a fictious God."

My Answer: Now that is just plain foolish. People were willing to do the same thing in the name of the state, yet when was the last time you thought, let alone openly suggested, that a secularist had a stunted mentality. I'll freely admit that some people use religion as a substitute for self, and in those cases, describing them as having a "stunted mentality" is a DAMN FINE description. But your gross generalization "all people of faith" shows a total lack of comprehension and disconnection from the 90+ percent of the world that accepts some version of a deity or a panoply thereof.

The fact is that anyone who uses something as a subsitute for having a sense of self has a stunted mentality, whether it be religion, ideology, a relationship (as Miss Alkon often points out in her delightful column to many a woman).

"All religious faiths have spent enormous amounts of time and money trying to convert everyone else to there "God". "

This is patently untrue, Judaism does not seek out converts. Ancient religions are also not widely known for seeking to convert the populous in most cases. If you are going to assert something, at least TRY to make it true.

"They can't all be correct so it stands to reason that there all wrong"

That is just stupid. Five people are asked what 2+2=, the first person answers 1, the second answers 4, the third answers 7, the fourth answers 6, the fifth answers 5. They can't all be correct, but one of them was right.

"This notion that atheists have no morality or moral compass is garbage."

You're on the money here. Good men have no need of laws, as Socrates said.

"assured in the knowledge there isn't one."

That is my one annoyance with atheism, it suffers from the same delusion as religious persons. The assumption of knowledge that is by its nature unknowable.

If anyone is reasonable it is the agnostic, whom at least says, its not known, and cannot be.

On the dominance thing: Read the articles I attached, and the linked articles. It is NOT all about dominance. That's old research, based on incorrect assumptions. Some is dominance, and some it just plain old "natural" -- or as some would have it, "unnatural" -- sex.

OK, I'll stop hijacking the thread now. Unless someone starts talking about nature. I kneejerk statements about nature. So does my dog.

Damn, one more hijack, because I am compulsive and I am so sorry, but I just absolutely cannot let this go: Crella asks "What does animal sexuality have to do with human sexuality?"

GAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!

You cannot possibly be serious, can you, Crella? Um, hi there. Humans are animals. I'm going to assume you don't need a link for that, but will be happy to provide you with one if need be.

Yes we are animals but we reason...big difference from dogs and cats.However,I was simply wondering why, when same-sex marriage is brought up, someone invariably says 'monkeys and dogs do it too!' as if that provides an explanation for the whole issue. Yeah, lets enact legislation for same-sex marriage because elephants have gay sex too.

Glad to have made your day.

> No, they are not. Buddhism is
> a religion

You're going to niggle me to death, aren't you? The slapback at Brian was mostly about his insinuation that he'd developed a brand new distinction between believing and submission to churchly authority. That ain't likely, not for any commenter on the internet. This culture of ours has been brewing for a very long time without any help from new kids like us. It's not a fresh topic.

> Perhaps your definition of
> anodyne is different than
> the one in the dictionary.

Get a haircut!

> Dunno. Do you?

The question wasn't for you, but thanks for your attention.

> I agree that it's important
> for kids to have role models
> of both sexes.

I don't. I hate "role models". It's stupid language for stupid people.

I think kids need loving mothers and loving fathers. If you disagree, be clear about it. Don't pussyfoot, you Ivy Leaguer, you... Say in a sentence: "What's best for kids is not a loving mother with a loving father."

After all... Everybody wants what's best for kids, right?

"WWII succeeded in killing roughly 6% of those within the various areas of combat zones.
In contrast, the wars of the Reformation..."

That is the best comparison you can come up with? The wars of reformation took place on a VERY limited land area, with virtually the ONLY locations with significant conflicts being centered around major population levels. WWII by contrast, you use what we call "weasel words" such as the phrase "various areas of combat zones" which overlooks that that entails virtually every inhabited continent and a far greater land area, with constant mobile activity not centered around major population centers for large periods of time. You do make an interesting argument in terms of percentages...but it just doesn't hold water.

Moreover, you make no distinction between secular authorities & their actions, vs. religious authorities & their actions, presuming overt control by religious authorities over secular ones with each faction.

"the latter two do not rely upon a supernatural supreme being."

One sentence: Cult of personality

Within those secular movements guilty of the worst transgressions against human dignity & liberty, you invariably find that in one form or another. Do they declare themselves to be God...no, but they claim all his characteristics, and as much of the power as possible. It just gets dressed up in a differing ideology.

"Religionists who blame "secularism" for the predations of 20th century totalitarians are tarring themselves with their own brush."

Not quite, the secularists just took that brush and painted themselves with it, I'm just not prepared to let it get obscured or brushed aside as if a secularist government killing spree is less relevant than a religion built hell on earth.

"Everything happens for a reason," has always irritated me. Everything does NOT happen for a reason.~ Conan the Grammarian

My answer: Sure everything happens for a reason, it just doesn't have to be a GOOD reason, nor does it even have to be "divinely inspired". But nothing in nature exists in a vacuum. I don't like the meaning of that statement that implies every action is in accordance with some deity...but nothing is without cause.

Robert, that's pretty much what I said. Pirate Jo espoused the non-reason cause of events.

Robert,

I should have said “some” not “all” people of faith have. So I stand corrected on that. However, just because 90% of the world has been duped into believing in a fairy tale doesn’t infer their correct. 95% of children believe in Santa but their wrong. Hell the argument for Santa is stronger than the argument for God.

9:14 favors conversion from paganism in the Torah. Interesting, conversion from paganism, guess it would have been that way considering there was only Judaism and paganism when the Torah was written. So know your facts, I got mine straight.

“That is just stupid. Five people are asked what 2+2=, the first person answers 1, the second answers 4, the third answers 7, the fourth answers 6, the fifth answers 5. They can't all be correct, but one of them was right.”

The difference here being that 2+2 is indeed 4. It’s proven and there is no argument. When you prove this to the ones who are wrong they except that reality, they don’t kill you in the name of 2+2=7.

“That is my one annoyance with atheism; it suffers from the same delusion as religious persons. The assumption of knowledge that is by its nature unknowable.”

Why is it the “faithful” want to be proved wrong without producing one shred of evidence that their correct. My assumption is not an assumption at all. Reason and logic (just like your math problem) are the basis of my knowledge. It is the lack thereof that would allow an otherwise intelligent person to believe in a fictitious deity. It is not by its nature unknowable, based on what standard, I can’t prove a scientologists beliefs wrong but I know they are. The same way I know Santa doesn’t exist. By your accounting “The assumption of knowledge that is by its nature unknowable” would also apply to Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and any number of fallacies.

So Robert I put it to you to prove that Santa does not exist. When you do, just apply that logic to God.

can't . . . stop . . . hijacking . . . thread . . .

Crid says: "Don't pussyfoot, you Ivy Leaguer, you... Say in a sentence: "What's best for kids is not a loving mother with a loving father."

I'm not pussyfooting. I think a kid needs at least one person, male or female, who loves and takes care of him. He needs strong, caring role models -- yes, I said it again! Just to bug you! -- of both sexes. But I don't think he must have two parents of opposite sexes living in the same house and married to each other, although I do think that's a very nice thing. Happy, well-adjusted kids come out of plenty of single-parent and gay-parent homes, just as messed-up kids come out of plenty of heterosexual-married-parent homes.

You've got a problem with my "role model," but I've got a problem with your "best". Even assuming, for the sake of argument, you're right about what's "best" for a kid -- Well, it's probably "best" that parents have an income adequate to provide a kid with swimming lessons, braces, and a good education. But do I think society should forbid low income people to marry? Of course not. Whether it's "best" for kids to have those things, they aren't necessary for the kid to grow up reasonably happy, healthy and well-adjusted, which is what counts.

And taking all of that aside, I don't think marriage is solely about kids anyway, but that's another story for another thread. (Perhaps the one about the scummy mummy who lies about her kids ages to get a free meal? Just a suggestion.)

We just don't agree on this one. But, hey, it sounds like we at least agree that homosexuality isn't against "nature." Don't know about you, but that gives me a nice warm fuzzy feeling way deep down.

"Don't know about you, but that gives me a nice warm fuzzy feeling way deep down."

Oh, wait, that was the dog again. STOP HUMPING THE COUCH, DAMN IT!

It is definitely time for bed. Sorry, I'm a little punchy today.

> I think a kid needs at least one
> person, male or female, who loves
> and takes care of him.

Great. Perfectly clear. Savagely, psycho-pathologically heartless, but clear. good to have you on the record. If little children don't have mommies, you're still cool.

Yep, I am. Are you going to take kids away from a widower? What if Dad ran off and doesn't want anything to do with the kids? Would you advocate yanking babies away from those single parents and putting them with loving heterosexual couples? How about forcing them to remarry? Why not, if it's "best" for the kids?

I think it's hilarious that you think a statement like "a kid needs at least one person, male or female, who loves
and takes care of him" is "savagely, psycho-pathologically heartless".

>I think it's hilarious

I don't think you're funny.

"I don't think you're funny"

That's OK. Freebie does. That's enough for me.

Robert said: "WWII succeeded in killing roughly 6% of those within the various areas of combat zones.
In contrast, the wars of the Reformation..."

That is the best comparison you can come up with? The wars of reformation took place on a VERY limited land area ...

That very limited land area included virtually all of Europe, and went on for at least a century.

It is a fact that the mortality rate of the wars of Reformation exceeded that of WWII by nearly an order of magnitude. "[Various] areas of combat" are not weasel words; rather, they include the whole shooting match. But it you wish, compare the mortality rates of the Reformation and WWII in Europe alone. The Reformation wins going away.

Read Will Durant's "The Reformation". It will take awhile though; it is impossible to catalog all that religious savagery in less than a 1000 pages.

Then tell me my argument does not hold water.

Di

Moreover, you make no distinction between secular authorities & their actions, vs. religious authorities & their actions, presuming overt control by religious authorities over secular ones with each faction.

Distinction without difference, as you admit when you go on to say ... Within those secular movements guilty of the worst transgressions against human dignity & liberty ... Do they declare themselvesto be God...no, but they claim all his characteristics, and as much of the power as possible.

The point here is the nature of the underlying belief. Religious belief invariably relies upon two things:

-- complex assumptions taken as absolutely true a priori, and are immune to examination

-- argument from authority

Any belief system that relies upon those two elements is religious, whether there is a god involved, or not. To call communism "secular" is to dodge the whole question of belief itself: the nature of belief in communism is precisely the same as the nature of belief in any organized religion.

++++

Everything happens for a reason.

Nothing happens without some prior cause.

That does not mean that everything that happens has a point.

Earthquakes have a cause, which sometimes cause huge tidal waves, which sometimes kill hundreds of thousands of people.

That doesn't mean there is any point at all in all, or even one, of those deaths.

Heyyy wait a second....

Its FEE-BIE. No "r". Freebie has questionable connotations.

Robert:

I forgot to add that The Church of Catastrophic Warming is a contemporary example of a materialist religion.

"Heyyy wait a second.... Its FEE-BIE. No "r". Freebie has questionable connotations."

I'm sorry! It's that teeny tiny print that did me in. Absolutely no questionable connotations intended.

By the way, did your vet recommend anything in particular for your couch humping dog? I'm sure what my dog is doing is natural, but frankly, it's not good for the upholstery.

She's a female, so that puts a fun spin on it. I was told sitting there doubled over laughing wasn't helping.

Sooo.... When it finally reached defcon 5 (morning stretches were met with straddled thrusts with me underneath in a very helpless position), I was forced to start taking action.

Stop the behavior immediately. Mine is a bit stubborn and I get the whole "didn't hear it" thing and it would continue (heeler mix) so i had to pin her down a few times on her back and say "NO". After a few times these incidents are now at a minimum. (dare I say, Thank GOD). ;)

(ok, that was a little kooky but fun)

But for the record, I think Mom's and Dad's for kids are optimal.

This would be very much off topic, except that several paragraphs of the original post dealt with the regrowth of amputated limbs. . .

Seems to me this is a problem medical science ought to be able to solve. Cuts and burns heal, which requires the body to generate skin tissue. Broken bones heal, which requires that bone matter be created. And some species can grow replacement limbs. Biologists just need to track down how these processes operate and figure out how to activate and control them in humans. With all that's now known about the human genome, how far away can this be?

"favors conversion from paganism in the Torah. Interesting, conversion from paganism"

The fact is you don't have your facts straight, the Torah was written by and for specific tribes of peoples, and trying to convert the masses beyond has never been known as a Jewish goal. Hell even conspiracy theorist antisemites never accused them of that so far as I've ever heard. (No I'm not suggesting you are one, just stating the obvious, when was the last time you saw a street preaching rabbi?)

"The difference here being that 2+2 is indeed 4. It’s proven and there is no argument. When you prove this to the ones who are wrong they except that reality, they don’t kill you in the name of 2+2=7."

I'll grant you that...except I wasn't addressing the moral issue of the argument, but rather the fundamentally silly logic that because they can't all be right, they were all wrong.

"Why is it the “faithful” want to be proved wrong without producing one shred of evidence that their correct."
"So Robert I put it to you to prove that Santa does not exist."

I often find it amusing when people speak of logic and reason, and then attempt to apply the very antithesis of logic and display their absolute lack of awareness on the subject. It has been a known logical absurdity to science, and before science to philosophy, to attempt to prove a negative.

You cannot prove a negative at all. For you to ask for proof that something IS, that is reasonable. For you to ask for proof that something is NOT...well that just can't be done.

Now insofar as the logic of assuming that there is no deity of any kind, is based on a set of precepts (assumptions) about the nature of life, the structure of nature, the rules that it all conducts itself by. You presume that everything postulated by science as it stands today is accurate & correct, and therefore that the conclusions of these learned men & women are also correct, and that the ordered time line and method of change that has built life as it exists today has been resolved. However if history has shown us anything it is that science gets a great deal wrong before it gets anything right, and in the course of seeking answers it will revise itself many times, often desperately clinging to a long beloved theory or belief simply because it suits their desires and worldview. (Piltdown man anyone?) Scientists too are prone to human error, self interest, and yes, self delusion just like all others. Your unquestioned faith in the answers they provide is not significantly different from that of a Christian to his minister. Though you claim to base your beliefs upon reason and logic, the truth of the matter is that you accept their claims as the final word, ignoring the many reversals, outright frauds, and simple all to human mistakes that occur in the process of aquiring knowledge. Like each generation before us, you have made the classic error of assuming that our generation just happened to be the one to get the answer right.

Myself, I do believe it more likely than not that god exists, though I'm given to doubt about actual day to day involvement in human affairs, and when it comes to the scientific question, well I am not prone to a belief in chance or randomness resulting in the consciousness that we human beings display, nor in the incredible variety of earthly life, by merest chance and opportune mutation. If you wish to believe that your answer is rational based on evidence that is at best incomplete, well no harm in that, your conclusion is certainly more socially and morally benign than those of certain extreme religious elements that most of us hold to be rather loathesome. But let us at least not pretend that your reason, or logic if you prefer, nor anyone elses, is going to be flawless about the nature of life's existence. I'm an agnostic because I see everyone as likely to be wrong as the next, or nearly so in any case.

-----------------------------------------

It doesn't hold water for one reason.

The reformation was an area limited conflict. Lots of killing in a MUCH more confined space. Ergo your mortality rate is GOING to be much higher. WWII was a GLOBAL conflict, ergo lots of constantly shifting resources, emphasized theaters of operation, and a MUCH higher population in almost every area. You aren't going to have the same kind of mortality rate between the Reformation & WWII, moreover, given the difference in medical technology between the centuries, the mortality rate is of course going to be significantly lower, since significantly more can be saved.

So while you might successfully argue "percentages" in terms of population casualties, it is as I said, an essentially meaningless argument that if anything, attempts to minimize the sufferings of uncountable hundreds of millions under extreme secularist governments. Had they been religious revivalists...I somehow suspect you'd be all over them.

----------------------------------------------

Distinction without difference? I think not, that is akin to saying, "Even if it wasn't their fault, it still is." There is plenty to lay at the feet of certain religious establishments down through the years, lets just make sure we lay the right things where they belong. And not presume that the secular authorities of those same governments were innocent parties to church barbarism. They were both plenty barbaric by today's standards.

"communism is precisely the same as the nature of belief in any organized religion."

With that I will agree. You have seen my point, secularism can become as much "god" and lead to as much "blind faith" as any religion, and has had no less nasty results.

Oh Crid, where is this perfect world you're dreaming of where there are happily married couples raising wonderful children? Haven't we seen enough divorce to realize that maybe the marriages are doing more harm than good to these kids? Sometimes scary things go on behind that white picket fence, but I guess if it looks good....

Robert, do you really want to worship a deity who condems nice people to hell, but lets murderers into heaven because they luckily managed to randomly pick the right number out of a near infinite selection?

And for all you chritsians out there what fo you think heaven is like really?

Cause most religions sell a version where everyone sits around for eternity telling god how great he is.

That sounds more like hell then the traditional hell does

Apparently I didn't space my paragraphs right-that comes form typing one handed with a crying baby. My being against gay marriage had nothing to do with natural laws. The gay marriage comment was me responding to Looj. The natural laws comment was me saying that God doesn't personally accomplish every action in the universe-he created the natural laws to do that for him. And, according to natural laws, limbs don't regrow. In fact, looking back at my post, they WERE 2 separate paragraphs.

Robert is correct when he states that most atheists are so sure that there is nothing yet ridicule those that believe in something when neither side has any real scientific proof of their position. I choose to believe and acknowledge that I could be wrong, but I have a faith in something that brings me comfort.

"favors conversion from paganism in the Torah. Interesting, conversion from paganism"

Just because you don’t like that fact 9:14 is clear about conversion doesn’t make it less so. I’m just pointing it out, it’s there like it or not. Trying to insult my intelligence on the subject only makes you look foolish. I noticed you didn’t say it wasn’t in the Torah. Typical liberal demagoguery, agree with me or you’re the stupid one, regardless of the facts.

“I'll grant you that...except I wasn't addressing the moral issue of the argument, but rather the fundamentally silly logic that because they can't all be right, they were all wrong.”

Funny you would use a math problem, which by the way use logic and reason the 2 things religion can’t claim (you have to suspend logic and reason), then call my reason “fundamentally silly”. Why is it silly? There are no moral issues with math, religion however is another subject. Thanks for making my point.

“You cannot prove a negative at all. For you to ask for proof that something IS, that is reasonable. For you to ask for proof that something is NOT...well that just can't be done.”

You’re absolutely correct and that is exactly what I wanted you to do. I’m not asking for proof that’s it not. I already know it’s a load of crap. Like all atheists or logical people, I’m asking for the proof that it IS. 2+2 is 4; you can show me that IS correct. By your own admission, I have asked a reasonable question. One you apparently can’t answer, why, because religion is and never was based on reason. It’s based on faith. No reasonable person would believe Santa is real any more than they should believe that God is. The proof that God IS, is in the hands of the faithful. It’s not for me to prove you wrong; it’s in your hands to prove you’re correct. Again thanks for making my point.

“when it comes to the scientific question, well I am not prone to a belief in chance or randomness resulting in the consciousness that we human beings display, nor in the incredible variety of earthly life, by merest chance and opportune mutation.”

The science behind the existence of life is there. The fact that you choose to ignore it, when it is clear you’re an intelligent person, is a bit baffling. Why look for answers at all if it’s divine intervention? And if it is divine intervention and he created us in his image, why not protect us? I would give my life for my children; guess he’s just an absentee father. This God we’re discussing is far more random than science. In his actions, or the lack of action. He has the power to create the universe and all things in it. Then we could assume he has the power to fix all the ills of the world but chooses to do nothing. He sits back and watches, but never intervenes (how convenient, guess we’re his science project). The utter lack of any proof what-so-ever is the very reasonable conclusion that he does not exist. If he does in fact exist and does nothing, even with all his power, then he’s a sick fuck.

Why look for answers at all if it’s divine intervention?

"I want to know God's thoughts...the rest are details."

A. Einstein.

(and don't respond that he was an atheist, it's not relevant to the conversation at hand.)

The utter lack of any proof what-so-ever is the very reasonable conclusion that he does not exist.

Tell it to James Hansen, Michael Mann, and Albert Gore, Jr.

"Happy, well-adjusted kids come out of plenty of single-parent and gay-parent homes"

In very low numbers. Some ducks are born with 2 heads, but that doesn't mean we should TRY for it.

" just as messed-up kids come out of plenty of heterosexual-married-parent homes."

Again, it happens, but is not the norm. Kids don't care if your heart still races when you see your spouse, or if you're sexually and spiritually fulfilled. They care that mommy and daddy are both there. Period. And 2 parents mere presence lowers the odds of almost every bad child outcome by over 50%. Not even involved-just THERE.

No one us arguing gay sex doesn't happen at any level, btw. We're merely saying they have no need to or right to marriage. Marriage is a societal construct that benefits society by raising future society members in optimal conditions. So society rewards it. And if we went back to societal pressure for good and lasting marriages, life would be better. For the kids, you know :)

"I want to know God's thoughts...the rest are details."

It is relevent, to know Gods thoughts you'd have to have a conversation with him. The rest would be only details because now you know he exists. Of course we don't know his toughts for obvious reasons.

"Tell it to James Hansen, Michael Mann, and Albert Gore, Jr."

Exactly, conclusion without proof, or worse, conclusion even when the proof is to the contrary. Sounds familiar!!!

Momof4, I'll ask you what I asked Crid. Where is this world you speak of? Would you really go back a few generations when there was societal pressure for good and lasting marriages? I don't believe they were any better than they are today, just that there was more pressure to stay together for the sake of the kids. How many kids grew up watching Daddy never home because he was haviing affairs or at the bar with the boys. How many knew Mom was taking another pill to get her through the day. How many of those marriages were really happy and how many were relationships that children should model future relationships on? I'm not just using myself as an example because I doubt anyone here would state that I should have stayed in an abusive marriage so that my children would see longevity. Out of my married friends, I know only one couple that is happy and should actually be together. The rest are miserable and it shows in every aspect of their lives. Some married too young, some married selfish people, some just grew apart after years together of raising kids, and some just evolved while their spouse did not. None of these people are bad people, but I guarantee that they'd all be better and happier people if they dropped the dead weight and moved on to productive lives. Is there an argument that they never should have married and had kids? I suppose there is, but the fact of the matter is they did, so what now? I watch my brother who lives with a screaming shrew. She hates my brother. He "works" ridiculous hours to avoid her. Their two beautiful children are caught in a crossfire. He won't leave because he thinks he is doing right by his kids and he has money he does not want to part with. My sister is married to an alcoholic who drinks and behaves in wildly innappropriate ways. She pretends not to notice because otherwise her life is perfect and yes, they have money. And yes, their children are often humiliated by their father's antics but have learned from my sister to pretend it doesn't happen and make excuses. I'll place odds on whose children will be fucked up as adults, theirs or mine. Married parents are not a guarantee in any way. Parents who love their children, are involved in their lives, and show them a life filled with good choices and good relationships will raise good people. And I'm sorry, but those parents are not always married, and they are not always heterosexual.

I love debating on this forum, so many smart people. Even the ones I disagree with, are at least eloquent and reasoned (most of them ;) in their arguments. Thanks and praises be to our favorite godless harlot. ;) Excepting our respective mates. ;)

Yes I'm in a good mood today.

> where is this perfect world you're
> dreaming of where there are happily
> married couples raising wonderful
> children?

I read your comment this morning and let it percolate for an hour, trying to summon the energy to respond. As with Gail last night, that energy just isn't available. It's been put into about several thousand of the other comments on these topics, but your presumption and naivete are just too deep... There just isn't time to take it from the top.

So, shucking right down to the cob: You imagine yourself to be practical and realistic, but I think you're egotistical and cowardly. As regards these issues, I couldn't think any less of you, even if you were whipping black slaves in your backyard. You're completely submerged in the thoughtless cruelties of your age. Your cynicism may be second-hand –we recognize these themes as we would a nursery rhyme• but the gusto is all yours.

Good luck out there.

Kristin:

I have a special place in my heart for children who grow up in the chaos you have described above.

However, homosexuals are no less addiction prone than heterosexuals.

"I was told sitting there doubled
over laughing wasn't helping."

Hmmm. Yeah, Feebie, that whole doubling-over-laughing thing may be at least part of what I'm doing wrong with the dog. Thanks for the tips. And maybe I'll talk to the vet, too.

As to the optimal/best thing -- It's not that I disagree that two loving parents rather than one is the optimal situation. Hey, my parents are still happily married, and I do think that was a nice thing for us kids -- although note that the word *happily* is in there. (My acquaintances with unhappily married parents are in therapy.) On the other hand, I know a couple of people (my sister-in-law and a close friend) who were brought up by widowed mothers. Neither of them really remembers their dads, which of course is extremely sad. But they and their brothers and sisters (both have large families) are all some of the most well-adjusted, productive people I know. It would certainly be optimal if Dad could have been there, but obviously Mom did a fantastic job on her own. I think a single, strong, loving parent -- or two loving gay parents -- are always better than two messed-up, heterosexual always-quarreling parents.

I guess my point is, I don't like the idea of a society restricting loving people who really want kids (and will take good, loving care of them) from having them. I wish there were some way to prevent uncaring, unloving, unbalanced, selfish bozos from having them instead, but unfortunately, I don't see any reasonable way of doing that in a free society.

That being the case, I think we should butt out of other people's marriages, child-bearing and child-rearing. Unless of course, (1) a kid's welfare is endangered (see, e.g., the kid in Amy's post who didn't get necessary medical attention), (2) someone is expecting the rest of us to pay for what they've chosen to do (see, e.g., Octomom). Oh yeah, or (3) if they or their kids are stepping on someone else's rights or stealing (see e.g., scummy mummy lying about her kid's ages to get free meals and pool rights, or the kids running around like animals in Starbucks).

To bring it back closer to the subject of Amy's post, I wouldn't prevent religious fundamentalists from having kids just because religious fundamentalists arguably may be more likely to pray instead of get proper medical treatment for their kids than people with more moderate religious views. But if those fundamentalists are in fact letting a kid die when a simple medical treatment would save him, well, it's time for society to step in for the kid's welfare.

or two loving gay parents

Which is a biological impossibility.

And I don't care what you believe, you cannot love someone else's child as much as you love your own. Why do you think the "step-mother" is an almost universally reviled character in fiction?

Egotistical and cowardly? I do have the energy to respond to that. You don't have to think highly of me or my opinions. I promise that I will not lose sleep over that. However, I am realistic enough to see the damage done to children in supposedly happy marriages just as I see it in children of divorce. There is no set formula for raising perfect children and I don't claim to know it. That is my own "cynical" opinion of course, but the proof is out there for anyone to see. And, Crid, despite our difference of opinion, I do respect your right to believe whatever it is that you believe whether I agree or not.

> I do respect your right to
> believe whatever

Such generosity.

"And I don't care what you believe, you cannot love someone else's child as much as you love your own. Why do you think the "step-mother" is an almost universally reviled character in fiction"

You're using Cinderalla as a basis for an argument? Now I've truly seen everything. But never mind, I'll answer.

First of all, plenty of step children and step parents do in fact have loving relationships. I would cut myself into pieces for my neices and a couple of the children of my friends, and take them on in a heartbeat if their parents died. Please. Whether I love them as much as their parents do? Well, we can argue. But do I love them enough to provide them with a good loving home? Oh please. And if you want to talk fiction, what price The Brady Bunch?

But let's take that aside. Even if you were right about step parents, *adoptive parents and step parents are not the same thing*. Not at all.

A step parent, by definition, is taking the kid on because he or she must. It's part of the package in getting the man/woman they want, and they may or may not be happy about that part of the package. They may or may not regard the kid as competition for their spouse's love or for resources for their own children.

An adoptive parent, on the other hand, is adopting children because he/she WANTS THOSE KIDS. They want to make the sacrifices in their lives that having those kids entails. They are willing to go to a great deal of trouble to have those kids. It's not something they're grudgingly taking on -- it's something they're fighting might and main to take on. And you want to tell me they're not going to love those kids? (Do you you know a single adoptive parent, Brian? I'd bet money you don't.)

"And I don't care what you believe, you cannot love someone else's child as much as you love your own. Why do you think the "step-mother" is an almost universally reviled character in fiction?"

Because the step-mother is cast as an evil, hateful bitch (yea Hollywood). The step-mother of my boys is a loving, caring person who has never shown a proclivity towards her biological children as oppossed to mine, nor myself towards hers. Saying you can't love someone else's children as much as your own is like saying you can't love your spouse (or significant other) as much as your mom, dad, siblings or extended family because your not biologically related.

Love is most certainly not a biological predilection. If it were, we would be incapable of loving anyone outside our bloodlines. Love is a unique human response with an enormous amount of variables without regard to biology.

The fact that you're incapable of such love is a character issue on your part. Not caring what anyone else believes is arrogant, yet another character issue. Please never have a relationship with a woman who already has children, they deserve better.

. . . not to mention, Brian, that if you're going to use the "people don't love their non-biological children" argument to prevent gays from adopting, are you also using the same argument to prevent heterosexual couples from adopting? If you think an adoptive parent can't love non-biological children enough to be good parents, you must be against adoption in general. Poor kids, stuck in an orphanage for life because adoptive parents won't love them as much as biological parents.

And what about gay fathers who use their own sperm and a lesbian friend to conceive? The kid is biologically his. Or if a lesbian uses a gay friend's sperm to have a kid? But I'm betting you still have a problem.

If you have no problem with heterosexual couple adopting a kid, and do have a problem with gays and lesbians having a biological child, then your issue is with gays raising kids, not with the kids not being biologically theirs. Leave biology the hell out of it.

Biology is incredibly valuable and important, but it's just amazing what people can use "biology" and "nature" to justify. Hitler used it to wipe out Jews and Gypsies. Americans used it to justify slavery and denying women the vote. And yet people still think that just waving a flag that says biology on it means that they must be right.

By the way, Ed -- great post.

And I don't care what you believe, you cannot love someone else's child as much as you love your own.

Brian, I cannot believe you posted this. I LOVE my daughters, and I also LOVE my BF's son and daughter. They're not of my womb, true, but I love them as much as if they were, because I LOVE their father. Someone once said that the most important thing a man can do for his children is to love their mother. Expanding on that, I believe the most important thing anyone can do for ANY child is to love them as much as their own, even if it seems they aren't all that lovable. And those are probably the ones who need it the most.

I think when people love *themselves* everyone benefits. (i know, a little touchy feely today...). If you love yourself you do not put yourself or the other people under your care under circumstances which are abusive or unhealthy.

It starts with personal responsibility and loving yourself first. Otherwise, its a sham. Talk is cheap.

Thanks Gail, you're not to shabby yourself.

Yep, Feebs, I agree with you. Healthy self-love and a healthy self-esteem make for healthy personal responsibility. Which is not a bad thing.

Crid said to Kristen: " read your comment this morning and let it percolate for an hour, trying to summon the energy to respond. As with Gail last night, that energy just isn't available. . . . I think you're egotistical and cowardly. . . . I couldn't think any less of you, even if you were whipping black slaves in your backyard. You're completely submerged in the thoughtless cruelties of your age."

Crid, don't short-change yourself. You've got plenty of energy. It's just that at the moment, you're wasting it on preposterous ad hominem attacks.

"and 30-75% of giraffes!"

Proximo:
"Those giraffes you sold me, they won’t mate. They just walk around eating and not mating. You sold me queer giraffes. I want my money back."

"Those giraffes you sold me, they won’t mate. They just walk around eating and not mating. You sold me queer giraffes. I want my money back."

That is exactly how I feel about my dog.

. . . and drat you, Gog. Now I'm going to have to watch "Gladiator" again.

"Biology is incredibly valuable and important, but it's just amazing what people can use "biology" and "nature" to justify. Hitler used it to wipe out Jews and Gypsies. Americans used it to justify slavery and denying women the vote."

You were using biology earlier to prove that homosexuality is normal.Giraffes do it! Is that different than citing biology as a factor in successful parent/child bonding, and if so, how? I could say that adoption can't possibly work because male lions kill unrelated cubs of females they want to mate with, but don't kill their own. You see what bugs me about these animal analogies? They ignore the superior moral judgement capacity of the human being, although they appear neat on the surface when they back up your points...

"Is that different than citing biology as a factor in successful parent/child bonding, and if so, how?"

Because as Flynne and Ed's comments above demonstrate quite beautifully, you don't need to be biologically related to have a successful, loving parent/child relationship. I know people who are closer to their step parents than to their real parents in a couple of divorce situations.

Sex, on the other hand, IS about biology. It's just silly to deny that. And it's silly to deny that something that is prevalent throughout nature (like homosexuality) is "unnatural."

Love (as Ed put it very well above) is a human trait. Unquestionably, we can love someone outside of our bloodlines, quite often more than we do our own flesh and blood. People love their spouses, significant others, and friends -- often more than our parents, children and sibling -- even though there is no biological tie. I don't know any adoptive parent that wouldn't die for their kids if it were required. None.

Speaking of random, unsupported assertions, I note that someone above claims that children of gay parents are overwhelmingly fucked up, and children of married parents are overwhelmingly not fucked up. Support please? For both assertions? Do you have any statistics at all to back this up, or just random assertion?

To make life easier, I'll agree that children from *happy, stable, loving* marriages, where both parents want the kids, are likely to turn out well (although some don't). I'll also agree that children of teenage, unwed, drug addict mothers who aren't ready to be parents are almost certainly going to be fucked up (although some aren't). I'm sure we all have common ground there.

But I'd like to see support for the assertion that a child is going to be fucked up if he is adopted (or biologically created) by single people or gay couples who are self-supporting, stable, loving adults who deeply want children and can take care of them. Seriously -- give me the stats. Or failing that, can you even give me some examples from your personal experience?

I'm going to look for some stats myself, but my personal evidence all goes the other way. The single female lawyer friend who adopted a baby girl from China? The kid is a pleasure and flourishing in school. The gay couple that had a kid via surrogate? Dad, dad and son all seem very happy, thanks. And step parents? I know quite a few, and in all but one situation, the relationships are pretty damn awesome. (Kid was a teenager when Dad remarried, and he wasn't thrilled. Stepmom is trying.) I think my friends are pretty stable, which is probably why my sample is a bit skewed towards stable kids. But don't these examples go to show that stability and love are what is important in parent-child relationships?

Ooops. I said: "And it's silly to deny that something that is prevalent throughout nature (like homosexuality) is "unnatural.""

Meant to say that it's silly to SAY that something that's prevalent throughout nature is unnatural. I wish we could edit our comments! But y'all knew what I meant. SEX = BIOLOGY. LOVE = LOTS OF COMPLICATED HUMAN FACTORS.

Ed:

Please never have a relationship with a woman who already has children, they deserve better.

So do I. Going into a relationship where the other person has a child (especially a young child) means you're starting out at #2. You're never going to be the focal point of the relationship, right from the beginning. You're second fiddle to those kids - which is as it should be. Anyone who is willing and/or able to put themselves in that position from day one is a better person than I.

Gail:

. . . not to mention, Brian, that if you're going to use the "people don't love their non-biological children" argument to prevent gays from adopting, are you also using the same argument to prevent heterosexual couples from adopting?

I didn't say that. I simply said it is impossible for a gay couple to produce a child that is biologically "theirs". Somebody doesn't have any genes in the game, y'know?

Flynne:

Brian, I cannot believe you posted this.

Why?

I LOVE my daughters, and I also LOVE my BF's son and daughter. They're not of my womb, true, but I love them as much as if they were, because I LOVE their father.

And what if you stop loving their father? Are you still going to be involved in their lives? If you ever found yourself in the position where you had to choose between your children and his, somewhere in your head you know you'd be giving your kids an edge in that thought process.

You can't fight biology. The best you can do is suppress it a little.

Brian -- again, any support? statistics? even some freaking personal examples?

I got plenty of personal examples, just get me started. My cousin Jim has a daughter, Heather. Jim and his wife divorced when Heather was a little girl. Mom got custody, and remarried a couple of years later. Jim saw his daughter fairly regularly (and, fyi, mom didn't restrict Jim's access -- he was just busy with his job and his love life), but it was stepfather Steve who helped Heather with her homework, counseled her on her problems, disciplined her when she was a bad girl. And although both Dads were at her wedding, it was stepdad Steve whom she chose to walk her down the aisle and dance the father-daughter dance. She danced with biological dad Jim, too -- they get along fine -- but it was pretty clear which of the two was her "real" Dad. And by the way, Steve doesn't seem to be at all perturbed by this. Like I said, he's pursuing his sex life and his job. And huh, Jim is my biological relative, but frankly, I like Steve better.

Biology came into this all right -- when Jim ejected some sperm. After that, it was all about love and good parenting. Jim wasn't the one providing it.

Well, pretty much all of my friends who came from divorced families are fucked up in one way or another. Most of the parents had remarried, there were always issues between the step parents, the step children, etc.

Maybe all the people around me are fucked up, and everyone around you is well adjusted.

All I have to go on is what I've seen in my world.

And it's almost uniformly bad.

On the other hand, my brother is married to a woman who had a child from a previous marriage, and he's the closest thing she's going to have to a father, since her bio father is on the other side of the country.

Your mileage may vary.

"And what if you stop loving their father? Are you still going to be involved in their lives?"

When my stepfather and mother seprated for 2 years he would still call me every week and wanted to spend some quality time with me. (I was about 18 then).

"If you ever found yourself in the position where you had to choose between your children and his, somewhere in your head you know you'd be giving your kids an edge in that thought process"

My stepfather has privatley told me that I and his eldest son are his favorite children.

I can say that he has always treated me as his biological daughter and sometimes many times better than my (biological) mother has treated me.

I understand this is not the general situation with stepparents but not an impossibility.

And I don't care what you believe, you cannot love someone else's child as much as you love your own. Why do you think the "step-mother" is an almost universally reviled character in fiction?

So far from true that I would weep for your tiny, tiny heart if I didn't have a better sense of perspective. My own adoptive parents would run into traffic for me. That's why I'm ready, willing and able to clean feces out of my mother's intestinal-surgery wound until she dies.

Monica - I will agree with Gail that there is a distinct difference between an adoption and marrying into "instant family". But even there, there are cases (I know this one personally) where the adopted child is not the only child (there was a biological child), and the adopted child was always introduced as such: "And this is my adopted daughter."

I realize that this is the exception, which is why I didn't mention it.

PPen reminds me of yet another example in my circle.

A guy I know married an absolute disaster of a woman, and the marriage waa an equally huge disaster. He stuck it out as long as he could, then handed her a chunk of money and got the heck out. Horrible situation.

But there was one very beautiful thing that came out of it. The woman has a son, who is now grown up and in college. My friend is not only in touch with the kid (years after the divorce became final) -- he's much closer to the kid than the kid's own mother is (like I said, she's a disaster). The kid is great, and calls my friend "Dad". My friend refers to him as his "son" (not stepson).

My friend, out of pure love, not any legal obligation, is chipping in for the kid's education. And by the way, the kid is black and my friend is white. My friend proudly shows everyone his son's photograph and brags about him (which given the racial thing, and the fact that my friend calls him his "son" rather than "stepson" really confuses some people!)

I give my friend a huge amount of credit for his son turning out so well. It couldn't have been his nasty bitch of a mother, or his deadbeat disappearing biological father.

It may be that I seek people like this out, and shut out the nasties, and maybe that skews my perceptions. I really do think I have some terrific friends. There's my piece of sunshine for the day.

"My own adoptive parents would run into traffic for me. That's why I'm ready, willing and able to clean feces out of my mother's intestinal-surgery wound until she dies."

MonicaP -- I'm very sorry your mother is ill. But you are immensely lucky to have each other. That's one of the most loving things I've ever heard anyone say about a parent.

Marriage is a societal construct that benefits society by raising future society members in optimal conditions. So society rewards it. -crid

If that were turly the case crid I could respect that position even though I dont agree with it.

But marriage is not what it once was

I never said that. "Social" is almost always a better word than "societal".

Crid I copied and pasted

looj you copied and pasted somebody else

Lujlp -- FYI, he's right, Momof4 said that, not Crid. That statement would be an actual argument. Crid was too busy spouting irrational insults yesterday to come up with anything like an argument.

On the topic of "evidence," most people would staunchly insist that we exist in a universe consisting of only four dimensions, including time. We now know (due to the efforts of quantum physicists) that most people are wrong -- we can only exist because there are many more dimensions which we are unable to directly perceive.

I am amused by the certitude of those arguing that God does not exist because we cannot directly perceive Him. The problem is not with God, but with our own limitations and blindness, right?

When an atheist can create life from non-life, get back to me, ok? Life itself is evidence of the Creator. That the Creator does not constantly tinker and interfere with His own creation is evidence of His wisdom, not His absence.

Gail — I hear your desperation for thoughtful exchange –we can all feel it in your tone– but there's just no reason to think it would be any fun.

Jay R.

"We now know (due to the efforts of
quantum physicists) that most people are
wrong -- we can only exist because there
are many more dimensions which we are
unable to directly perceive. I am amused
by the certitude of those arguing that
God does not exist because we cannot
directly perceive Him."

OK, fair enough, there are plenty of things we can't perceive. But isn't this a ground for being agnostic (you can't know whether God exists) rather than a ground for having faith that he exists? What does the actual faith arise from?

"That the Creator does not constantly
tinker and interfere with His own
creation is evidence of His wisdom,
not His absence."

But then why do believers talk about "God's will" when things happen, or pray for God to do something about illnesses etc.? He's not going to stop a tsunami, so why is he going to do something about Susie's swine flu? In the context of this discussion, why sit around a bedside praying for someone who doesn't want to tinker, instead of getting medical attention that's been proven to work?

To me, that's a disconnect. To believe in God without evidence, you must believe that he isn't tinkering with the universe. But how can you pray to him for guidance and to fix problems if God isn't tinkering?

And if you point to stuff like your cancer going into remission, the plane that landed safely in the Hudson, etc., as examples that God occasionally does tinker when he finds it worth his while, then what price the babies that are routinely tortured and murdered, the tsunamis, etc.?

It has been said that while God answers all prayers, sometimes the answer is "no".

Make of that what you will.

And what if you stop loving their father? Are you still going to be involved in their lives?

Brian, I wouldn't stop loving their father. I still love my daughters' biological father, to a degree (albeit a very small one), but that love changed over time. If my love for my BF changes, it still won't affect the love I feel for his kids. (I don't really hate anyone, per se. I've forgiven people who've wronged me, but I haven't forgotten what they did, so I keep my distance. I'm weird like that, I guess.)

"It has been said that while God answers all prayers, sometimes the answer is "no".

Make of that what you will."

Well, I'd be OK with God denying someone's prayer for a promotion at work, winning the lottery, etc. But I'd like to see a bit of action when it comes to raped, tortured and murdered kids. Just can't see a good reason for ignoring a parent's plea that an innocent kidnapped child be returned unharmed. Some folks argue that maybe the child would have grown up to be a bad person, and we just can't know that. OK, but then why did God let the kidnapper grow up into a bad person?

Yeah, I know. His motives are inscrutable. But I need more scrutability to believe, much less worship.

Which is among the reasons I refuse to worship.

A God so capricious is hardly worthy of worship and praise.

Brian -- you believe but don't worship? That's actually quite interesting. I know plenty of non-church-going believers, and plenty of athiests and agnostics. But I don't think I know anyone who both believes there is a God, but doesn't think He is worthy of praise.

I'm an agnostic (by which I mean that I don't believe in God, but also don't believe that it is possible for me to know everything). In a weird way, your position, if I've articulated it correctly, makes some sense to me. To the extent a God could be consistent with the way the world actually is, he can't be too nice or too caring. If He's up there, He's got some 'splainin' to do.

By the way, I don't have the same contemptuous feelings towards believers that a lot of athiests have. I was brought up as a believer, and it was quite a comforting feeling to believe. As long as religious people don't mess with my life, advocate killing or persecuting people outside their religions, deny medical treatment to their kids or oppress their women, I'm cool with them.

Gail -

To my way of thinking, mine is the only rational position to take. Absent further evidence, creation itself cannot be explained away. Until such evidence is presented, creation is the handiwork of "God".

I never found comfort in believing. Perhaps that is because my only exposure to religion was Roman Catholic, which emphasized how you little pieces of shit are all going to hell, but if you pray hard enough, maybe God will take pity on you and let you in to heaven.

What convinced me that God doesn't give a rat's ass for his creation, and is unlikely to be involved in any event, was watching my grandmother wither away from Alzheimer's. No caring God could ever do such a thing to a woman like her. She was the sweetest woman in the world, and although she didn't suffer, the rest of us that had to watch her disappear one neuron at a time certainly did.

So, if God does take an interest in His creation, then because of what He allowed to happen to my grandmother, I hate God.

I'm very sorry about your grandmother, Brian.

I don't think there's any meaning in what's going on here on planet earth. We have to find and create meaning for ourselves, and goodness and beauty.

I was also brought up a Catholic. I got a laugh out of your description. But I did find it comforting to think that death wasn't the end, and that if I did everything right, we'd all meet up again in heaven. It was a sad, black moment when I realized (at age 12) that I honestly didn't believe that any more.

Where are you on the afterlife? Heaven, Hell, something else? And if you believe in one, will your belief in God get you there, or is God going to be pissed at you for not believing in him? (That's another issue I have with the idea of God and hell -- he creates non-believers and then sends them to hell for not believing in him? I used to make block houses when I was a kid just to knock them down, but I outgrew it.)

I am genuinely and sincerely interested -- I am not being a wise ass (a welcome change, I'm sure).

. . . or rather I meant, is your God going to be pissed at you for being angry with him and not worshiping him. (Wish we could edit!) But actually, the question is the same. Do you believe in eternal life, what is it, and what gets you there?

As yet another aside, I had an absolutely infuriating discussion with a born again Christian once. She explained to me that Mother Theresa was going to hell, because although she was both religious and devoted her entire life to serving poor and suffering people, she had not "accepted Jesus as her personal savior", whatever the fuck that means. But, she told me, the most disgusting multiple child rapist/serial murderer would go to heaven, if just before death touched the homicidal pervert with its icy toenails, the creep accepted ol' Jesus as his personal pal. That is just so fucked up.

I asked her why it should stop with death. Let's say Mom T or the pervert realized just AFTER death that they wanted Jesus as their personal savior. What's with the death cut-off? She wasn't sounding very Christian by the end of the conversation, but that's what she gets for following me around with pamphlets and trying to convert me.

Do you believe in eternal life, what is it, and what gets you there?

There is only one answer: I don't know. And I suspect you don't either. However, unless I am personally impacted, I see no reason to assault those who claim to have an inside track.

Which is why my response to anyone who asserts that I am going to eternal hellfire for failing to follow their particular flavor of faith is "See you there."

I guess Ed gave up on me. Must be all those character flaws I possess.

"However, unless I am personally impacted, I see no reason to assault those who claim to have an inside track"

I more or less agree with that. I think people have the right to believe what they want to believe, and power to them, as long they aren't hurting anyone. And except in threads like this, or if people come looking for the argument, I don't generally argue with people about their religious beliefs. But that born again woman was so annoying, persistent and smug, I wanted to slap her.

The main advantage of prayer seems to be that, for at least a short time, we can pretend that someone cares about what happens to us and is listening, even if all they can do is pat us on the back and say "there, there."

I was raised Roman Catholic and am now pagan, and I still find myself doing the sign of the cross and saying Catholic prayers from time to time. Self-delusion can be enormously comforting.