The Creation vs Evolution debate thread...

[Aramike]

My problem with the concept of God with regards to the Jewish/Christian/Muslim God, is that I can't reconcile the fact that, if God actually created everything when and how the Bible says he did, than why did he create so much proof to the contrary of how the Bible depicts it?

Using theory and experimentation, we can be reasonably sure that the universe is roughly 13.7 billion years old. Now the Bible tells us something quite different.

But see, here's the thing: despite what many religious practicioners claim, believing in such is not merely a matter of faith. If faith was the question, than fine - I'd have at it. Except that it isn't.

One has to not only have faith in religious texts but ALSO discount items we can PROVE are contradictory.

To me that's akin to staring at a blue sky and believing its pink because you've invested trust in a concept that purports the sky to be pink.

I have faith in what I can see, feel, and verify. I do not have faith in abstract concepts that CONTRADICT what I can see, feel, and verify.

On the other hand, I do not seek to deprive anyone of said faith. Belief is a decision, one that can have a wonderful impact on anyone should they harness it properly.

I just can't bring myself to share in it.

Finally, I don't see religious beliefs as a failing. Quite frankly, I wish I could share in many of them. That I can't, makes me see myself as flawed.

[August]

But I think keeping on to argue about it would just add to the confusion that finally brought us to where we ended.

Of course, the fact that Steve was winning had nothing to do with it... :D

[Skybird]

My problem with the concept of God with regards to the Jewish/Christian/Muslim God, is that I can't reconcile the fact that, if God actually created everything when and how the Bible says he did, than why did he create so much proof to the contrary of how the Bible depicts it?

Even more basic. Why has he created us humans so imperfect and obviously flawed like we are? Why leaving us the choice between good and evil if he could have made sure that we all do good, and are saved? What purpose is it for him to see some of us burning in hell?

If it is intention, then he is wicked.

If it is by accident, he is no almighty, perfect god.

If it is to see us failing and getting doomed over it by him, it is sick and evil.

If it is so see us succeeding - he could have had that from the beginning on by giving us a much imporved design.

If he is such a megastar amongst omnipotent superbeings, why taking pleasure from us worshipping him and doing what he wants to see us doing, and punishing us for failing because he designed us so that we could fail? Don't we get punished then due to his design decisions? Shouldn't we be the ones then punishing him...? I mean we would have much more reason to be angry about him then he has to be angry about us.

And if you tend to attribute all and everything to him and thank him for all the good stuff he is doing for you: before you thank him for letting your broken leg heal and having send you that person finding you when you were laying with broken legs on the ground at that isolated place - consider that it was also him flipping that banana skin in front of your feet so that you slipped on it and broke your leg.

The way our theistic religions imagine their gods, to me is just this: we try to bring all universe down to our level, define it's existence by our standards and means, and think all things revolve around us with our fate forming the centre of the universe. It is the ultimate egocentrism, the utmost megalomania. The more we hail our gods, the more we declare ourselves to be the navel of the universe. We think: God, but we mean: ourselves. Consequently, there is often a very huge ammount of self-righteousness (=Selbstgerechtigkeit) and patronizing (=Gönnerhaftigkeit) in religions. It ultimately culminates in the statement: "You may not believe in my god, but I tell you my God still loves you nevertheless." Oh how much I have to drink before I could bare such an arrogant adress. Translated into plain English it means: "I am right and everythign revolves around me."

[Letum]

Even more basic. Why has he created us humans so imperfect and obviously flawed like we are? Why leaving us the choice between good and evil if he could have made sure that we all do good, and are saved? What purpose is it for him to see some of us burning in hell?

I would imagine a theist might argue that for the concept of good to have
any meaning, there must be an alternative to being good.

If no one has the choice but to do good, have they really done good?

[Aramike]

I would imagine a theist might argue that for the concept of good to have
any meaning, there must be an alternative to being good.

If no one has the choice but to do good, have they really done good?While I agree with the concept of only being able to know a state if there is a state that is NOT the other state, I do agree with what Skybird said, and that is in fact another issue I've always had with religion.

The concept of an all-knowing God creating man, than man becoming imperfect against the will of the all-knowing, perfect creator, seems to default itself out when approached with logic.

[August]

The concept of an all-knowing God creating man, than man becoming imperfect against the will of the all-knowing, perfect creator, seems to default itself out when approached with logic.

It only seems that way if you don't understand that God has given us the gift of free will and all that it entails.

[Aramike]

It only seems that way if you don't understand that God has given us the gift of free will and all that it entails.But I suppose that logically leads to another logical problem - if God gave us free will, and God is omnipotent, omnicient, and omnipresent, than that God would be aware BEFOREHAND that said free will will result in imperfection and sin, and therefore God knowingly created imperfection, leading me back to my original argument.

[Sailor Steve]

No, if we are to be able to choose, we also have to be able to choose evil. Just because God knows what we're going to do doesn't mean He made that choice for us. He doesn't make us choose evil, he only gives us the option.

See, it's easy to rationalize if you know how.:03:

[Snestorm]

This is absurd.
Think I'll pass on the imaginary friend thing and stick with my dog.
I can see, hear, and feel him.

[Buddahaid]

To what point is good without evil, or evil without good? I see God and Satan as two sides of the same coin, one cannot exist without the other. I also will not put my faith in, or respect in a capricious, or fickle god(God?), as that's power without responsibility. Let me be proved wrong when I die.

I wish you all(heathens and pagans as well:03:) a Merry Christmas or winter feast

[Letum]

No, if we are to be able to choose, we also have to be able to choose evil. Just because God knows what we're going to do doesn't mean He made that choice for us. He doesn't make us choose evil, he only gives us the option.

See, it's easy to rationalize if you know how.:03:

Then again, to counter this (and my argument!) an all powerful god should
not be constrained by logic (which presumably he devised anyway).
That being the case, he is free to create a universe where we are both
simultaneously free to do either good or evil, but only able to do good and
never able to do evil.

All he needs to do is devise a universe where logical contradictions like
this make perfect sense.

It's silly of course, but that what you get with all-powerful beings.

[antikristuseke]

i was talking about the topic...
This world, and animlas, plants, couldnt exist the way it is by random chance. C'mon, you write so smart. If someone disarm a tv and throw it in a box, add or substract millions of components shake it for 1000 billion years, when it will get functional again? thats my point.

Evolution is not random. Mutations are, natural selection is not. Your argument is silly and wrong on very many levels.

Here is a long and detailed article, with sources for claims cited, with scientific evidence for evolution. Read it and learn. If you do not know what the theory of evolution is and what it proposes there is really no point in discussing it any further with you.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

[Skybird]

I would imagine a theist might argue that for the concept of good to have
any meaning, there must be an alternative to being good.

LaoTse surely was no theist, but said the same (TaoTeKing, No 2).


If no one has the choice but to do good, have they really done good?
They would have done what they would have done, and at least they would be in heaven instead of hell. And it does not answer why God made man such as that some of his designed creaturess will be punished and others reside in the president suite in the afterlife. If God is almighty and infinite and eternal, he must have formed Good and Evil himself, else how could Good and Evil have been there since before him - and then he would not be infinite and eternal!? So if God is the creator of this duality, designing creatures to suffer at least is a perverse hobby, I would say: willing to create suffering and eternal hellfire - by the hand of God. Does an all-loving, all-forgiving God do so?

and this gift of free will - what meaning could that have for a being as great and grandious as God? If he intended to plan and mean well for his creation, wouldn'T it have made more sense to create creation in such a way that there would be no suffering and imperfection - and no humans failing and burning in hell? Accepting to create Evil just to form "free will" - what interest could He have in such a bagatell (from his perspective)? And what with all the other life forms, animals? Are they all doomed to end in hellfire? Or heaven? What for? For God having refused them a free will, as to be found in man? And Aliens on another planet, whose characteristics may be beyond what we can even imagine - what about them?

From a medical and psychological point of view some may even question that a free will in humans even exists.

One could also argue that Christian Mystics as well as Buddhists and Taoists have another ideal than just "doing good" - and that is to go beyond the duality and diversity of creation, and realise "one-ness" again where dualistic polarisation does not exist and all perceived universe collapses again into just one point, one moment, one everlasting present, one complete and whole space-time. Mystics called that "being united with God". To lend from their terminology: why has God formed diversity then in the first, instead of leaving things as they were: a singularity, a single point, a one-ness: that is himself? Or in other words: if God exists, why does a separate universe exist, then? Or: if a universe exists, why needing to assume that a God exists who has created it?

To me, assuming a creator who is separate form his creation, makes no sense. Only a creator who is his creation - and thus necessarily is men like you and me, too - makes sense: and speaks against the image of a perfect, all knowing god. Either we all and everything that is, is God, or no god does exist. Compare to buddhism: every thing has buddhanature, every leaf, every stone, every dog, every man and women, every cloud, every moment of time, every piece of dogsh!t on the street. And there is no different Buddhanatures, like there is no different gods.

Maybe this is the original meaning of "sin" - to start thinkling that we are separated from everything, and to assume that what is essentially one actually is many, and that by that separation of god and nature we distance ourselves from our own divine essence and divine nature. Becasue what God is and what Buddha-nature is, is looking through our eyes, is reflecting on our minds, and is us asking questions about ourselves. And maybe that is the meaning of life, existence and cosmos: this one mind that you may call god or buddhanature becoming aware of itself, understanding itself, and understanding that beyond itself there is nothing else, for it is one in all, and all in one.

This is also an implicit primary argument in Buddhism and Taoism. I would even say that if you understand him not literally, but as speaking in metaphors, Jesus said the very same.

Nobody of us needs to reach anywhere. We are all - if only we knew - already there.

[August]

...free to do either good or evil, but only able to do good and never able to do evil.

Then we wouldn't be free at all. I can play a video game in indestructible mode but that doesn't prove that i'm any good at it. No, Gods gift to us is life in full real mode. I wouldn't want it any other way.

[Tribesman]

I wouldn't want it any other way.
So that includes people who talk of god but bugger little kids, ****wits who claim god wil give them a pile of virgins if they do realy bad stuff, and idiots who think they are chosen and can do anything to anyone who isn't chosen?

[August]

So that includes people who talk of god but bugger little kids, ****wits who claim god wil give them a pile of virgins if they do realy bad stuff, and idiots who think they are chosen and can do anything to anyone who isn't chosen?

Yeah all that and self righteous Irishmen who claim expert knowledge about the Honduran constitution without any evidence to back it up.

[AngusJS]

Then we wouldn't be free at all. I can play a video game in indestructible mode but that doesn't prove that i'm any good at it. No, Gods gift to us is life in full real mode. I wouldn't want it any other way.Is god omniscient? How is it possible to know the future if it hasn't been determined? If it's been determined, how can free will exist?

How can we have free will when brain tumors can turn people to pedophilia? (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2943-brain-tumour-causes-uncontrollable-paedophilia.html)

And isn't it interesting that free will wasn't such a big concern in biblical times, when god would meddle in human affairs at the drop of a hat to aid or punish his favorite tribe of goat herders. Only now that god has fallen silent and appears to be taking an extended vacation does free will become sacrosanct (and the go-to answer for why the world sucks/why the need for faith). And now, with the crimes of the twentieth century still fresh in our memory, does that excuse seem all the more unsatisfactory.

[AngusJS]

This is absurd.
Think I'll pass on the imaginary friend thing and stick with my dog.
I can see, hear, and feel him."Dog" spelled backwards is "god."


Think about it.


:hmmm:

[Skybird]

"Dog" spelled backwards is "god."


Think about it.


:hmmm:
:D

Damn, what a return! :har:

That is hilarious...! :rotfl2:

:woot:

[Snestorm]

So if God is the creator of this duality, designing creatures to suffer at least is a perverse hobby, I would say: willing to create suffering and eternal hellfire - by the hand of God. Does an all-loving, all-forgiving God do so?

The biggest tool in religion's toolbox of control is not "The LOVE of God".
It's "The FEAR of God".

To break through multi-generational social conditioning is an extemely difficult task.

[Skybird]

Ah, it's a typo then. It must read "Jesus hates you!"

[Snestorm]

Ah, it's a typo then. It must read "Jesus hates you!"

Isn't it interesting that they preach the love of Jesus and the wrath of God?
Good guy, bad guy?

[Skybird]

Tango & Cash.:D

[August]

questions

The beauty part is that God does not require you to believe or understand.

Personally I see the stories in the bible as little more than fables you tell children to illustrate some deeper point. We humans do not really comprehend the concept of God so we invent stories. To read anything more into it is to miss the greater truth.

[Sailor Steve]

The dyslexic atheist believes there is no Dog.

The insomniac dyslexic agnostic lies awake at night wondering whether there's a Dog.

[August]

The dyslexic atheist believes there is no Dog.

The insomniac dyslexic agnostic lies awake at night wondering whether there's a Dog.

So the dyslexic theist spends his time wondering why God spends so much time licking himself?

[Sailor Steve]

:rotfl2: :haha: :har: :rotfl2: :haha: :har: :rotfl2: :haha: :har:

Cleaning the screen, desk and keyboard after that one.:rock:

[Tribesman]

Yeah all that and self righteous Irishmen who claim expert knowledge about the Honduran constitution without any evidence to back it up.
Wow you still ain't learned anything on that topic and you still have not read the document....and appear to be very bitter about your lack of knowledge.
Congratulations August.

[MothBalls]

The one thing missing from this entire debate is...... Tolerance.

I accept that what you believe in is truth. Your truth. You can live your life according to your truth, or faith, and I will not interfere with your right to do so.

At the same time, please accept my truth the same way and don't try and convince me that your beliefs are the only truth.

Even though we may not believe in the same god, or lack of god, doesn't mean that we can't be friends and live together in peace.

[August]

Wow you still ain't learned anything on that topic and you still have not read the document....and appear to be very bitter about your lack of knowledge.
Congratulations August.

And congratulations to you for continuing your smoke screen. Most people would have admitted their failure by now...

[Tribesman]

The only failure there august is your failure to read and learn.
It must be an evolutionary thing with you where you are unable to develop.
Simple lesson august, if even the people who overthrew the government say it was unconstitutional then you must have a real severe mental block if you still cannot understand it.

[MothBalls]

Ok - some ground rules.

#1 - This is a DEBATE. Calling people names or throwing out insults because someone disagrees with you is not a debate. If you cannot contribute maturely, don't post.

#2 - Nothing said here should be taken personally. Educated people disagree all the time, without having their feelings hurt.

Thought I'd toss this back up for those of you who obviously missed it.

[Tribesman]

The one thing missing from this entire debate is...... Tolerance.

Ah tolerance, I heard of that once.
http://www.modernstance.com/deathtoallunbelievers.html

[Skybird]

The one thing missing from this entire debate is...... Tolerance.

I accept that what you believe in is truth. Your truth. You can live your life according to your truth, or faith, and I will not interfere with your right to do so.

At the same time, please accept my truth the same way and don't try and convince me that your beliefs are the only truth.

Even though we may not believe in the same god, or lack of god, doesn't mean that we can't be friends and live together in peace.

Ah yes, tolerance.

First, read my sig.

second, consider this:

One of the highest cleric authorities in global islam, Yussuf al-Qaradawi, just has issued a fatwa that wants to prohibit all Christians living in muslim countries from celebrating christmas. This fatwa has been issued in combination with a sermon he gave on the issue as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8dkOR5pH1I&feature=player_embedded

Tolerance?

today, an interesting interview with an American oberver of Germany has been published here.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,668750,00.html

you may want to take note of the integration problems, and what he said about two types of public debate of islam, and the folly of believing that a strong Islam would change it's identity due to the weak western self-identity.

Now compare all this to thousands of prayer rooms, mosques and minarettes having been build in europe in the past 40 years - while the chruches get systematically hindered, supressed and discriminated in pratcually all Islamic nations, and communities in Muslim nation shrinking constantly, and their members being constantly discriminated as well. compare what the West allows Islam in freedom of religion (and politics), dominating media presence, public debate and privilefges not even given to the churches, with the systematic intolerance towardsa other cultures and relgions practiced inMuslim countries. The dysbalance should be a real eye-opener. Compare that preacher's hate-sermon against christmas, with this stupid Bishop in Hamburg who just a week ago deamnded that in his city he wants muezzins calling muslims to prayer in the city of Hamburg. No, that Bishop, a woman, is not muslim at all. but instead of caqring for her own relgion'S business, she appeases Islam in advance, hoping to stengthen the claim for politial power of the church again , and social influence, if Islam becomes stronger accepted by people and by soceity first. And in some protestantic communities, the priests want to celebrate muhammad's birthday in Chuistian curches and together with the birthday of Jesus.

Insanity and stupidity indeed knows no limits. Just good intentions.

If there would be a free poll on building of more minraetts in gerjmany, too, I am cifndent that like in Switzerland a majority of people would votre against it. The media-led politically correct dictate of opinion on islam does not reflect the real opinion. That the EU makes criticism of Islam and religion a "hate"-crime that could be punished both with prison and paying money, does not help, of course.

Imn some post aboveI noted that Islamic law prohibits to have treaties with infidel factions lasting longer than two years. This is to protect Islamic identity from getting watered down when being too long in tolerant coexistence with other cultures. There is another such ruling, on which practically all legal schools of islamic law agree. That rule says that Muslims moving to non-Muslims places shoudl stay there only for a maximum of four years. After these years, is the original law, they either must have been successful in having turned the place into amuslim culture, or they must go away, again to protect their holy muslim characteristics being protected from getting negatively influenced. This is a valid law, although even many mulsims do not know it, and as said: the various schools of islamic law agree in their verdict oin this rule beign binding.

Now, as often, there are sometimes more, sometimes less obvious differences between practcial reality, and ideal demands of ideology. Nevertheless, you must keep the ideologic side in mkind , especially when thinkn abiut islam. The ideologists are more influential in the islamic world, then it is the case with other ideologies there are, and their accordding societies. and these preachers loal to the original ideology reach far more people in their hearts, then for example the Chruches or the Wetsern democracies do.

An immigrant is somebody who moves to a foreign place, and tries to adapt to the new environment he finds, and and tries to melt into the local social culture and become part of it. the risk of resistent sub-cultures and paralleol soceities is low, therefore, and we see that in Germany with all non-Muslim imigration groups there are.

A colonist is somebody who moves to a foreign place and has no intention at all to adapt himself to it, but to chnage the place that way that it adapts to his own needs, by that he wants the new world becoming like the old home he has left behind. The risk of sub cultures and parrallel societies therefore is high. If you think about that 4 year rule, you must admit that there cannot be imagined something like a Muslim "immigrant" - not from an Islamic juristic or theologic point of view. Muslim migration means nothing but attempted muslim colonisation, therefore.

that many Muslims stay beyond that four yera rule, simply is in violation or lacking knowledge of that rule. Lacking practical alternatives also play a role especially when people come from very poor places and are unedcuated and form the special low class - the dominant, major share of muslim migration is like that.

How far can you get with tolerance in the face of such a challenger? Remember, Muhhammad was a conqeror, his ideology was a poltical tool, Islam is a conqueror's ideology.

Again, that interview gets many things very right. What he has noted on the Turkish subculture in Germany proving to be extremely resistent to integration, is true.

That you personally want to be tolerant, honours you. but ongoing tolerance in the face of what does not tolerate yourself - is a very bad idea, maybe. Having good intentions yourself - is not enough. I think to some part you are aware of that.

I do not agree with all what Caldwell says, but in general he gets some major things straight and right. On some, he is not aware that he shares the optimism of those that he criticises for right that optimism.


(...)
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Are you suggesting there is no open discussion (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,666448,00.html) about Islam in Europe?
Caldwell: I think these things are getting much more openly debated than a few years ago. In the Netherlands and Denmark you do have a contentious debate. I think a lot of Danes and Dutch aren't really proud of the way their populist parties are discussing the issue of immigration, but it's generally much better if things are discussed openly.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Where, in your opinion, is it not possible to speak openly about it?
Caldwell: In countries like France there are laws against all sorts of speech. That has a very chilling effect. Many people are frightened about negative consequences if they say how they really feel. Sometimes even to the pollsters, as the Swiss example shows.
(...)
Caldwell: As I say in my book: When an insecure, malleable, relativistic culture meets a culture that is anchored, confident and strengthened by common doctrines, it is generally the former that changes to suit the latter.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Do you think the European mainstream culture is weak because it is secular?
Caldwell: Islam is the second biggest religion in Europe. But that is true only if you're thinking statistically. If you're thinking culturally and spiritually, it looks like the first religion of Europe. There are many, many more articles on the front pages of newspapers about what Islam says about this and what the Koran says about that than there are articles about Christian theology. They are full of debates between Muslims and non-Muslims addressing question about what the Koran says about honor killings and the headscarf. What Christianity says is not really a matter of much importance to anyone.
(...)
Caldwell: There is no welfare state on the scale of that in Europe, and I think welfare states are a bad fit for large-scale immigration. In an ethnically diverse society, people are less familiar with each other, and they are correspondingly less willing to pay taxes for social benefits. Two-thirds of the imams in France are on welfare. There is nothing wrong with being an imam. But I don't think the French are very happy about paying what is effectively a state subsidy for religion in that way.

[Tribesman]

second, consider this:

OK I'm game for a laugh.

One of the highest cleric authorities in global islam
There is no such thing.
Wow that was short and really strained the thought process.:rotfl2:

[Snestorm]

Tolerence is for weaklings.

Sensitivity "Training" (Indoctrination) is to create controlable weaklings that reject their own thought process.

[sharkbit]

The one thing missing from this entire debate is...... Tolerance.

I accept that what you believe in is truth. Your truth. You can live your life according to your truth, or faith, and I will not interfere with your right to do so.

At the same time, please accept my truth the same way and don't try and convince me that your beliefs are the only truth.

Even though we may not believe in the same god, or lack of god, doesn't mean that we can't be friends and live together in peace.

Winner! :woot:

Unfortuneately, tolerance has been sadly lacking through the centuries in religion.
:)

[Skybird]

Tolerence is for weaklings.

When perceived in the other from a radical fundamentalist perspective - no matter what ideology - then yes. Radical fundamentalists tend to interprete any offer by another side as a sign of weakness. And they tend to use the opportunity and exploiting it.

To be tolerant can also show strength - because you must be strong enough to afford tolerance. But only as long as it knows limits defining what is to be tolerated - and what not. For doing so you need a strong own identity. the EU is pressing hard to neutralise and negate grown identities of people in europe, and replacing them with bureaucratic orders of proper behaviour so that all places are nicely uniform. Very attractive.

Beyond these limits, tolerance indeed is a weakness. In an European context, Western unlimited tolerance for Islam is just preadvancing (=vorauseilend) obedience, appeasement, perfect dhimmitude. we brought it to perfection, which is not wonder with over 40 years of experience in falling back.

Sometimes the EU's ideal society reminds me of that peaceful idyll good ol' Stallone had to wake up in in "Demolition Man". Poor dog.

[AngusJS]

The beauty part is that God does not require you to believe or understand.How do you know that? If you're going to discount the bible, how could you claim to know anything about god at all?


To read anything more into it is to miss the greater truth.What greater truth?

It's seems as if you're attributing characteristics to god, yet as soon as soon as some of the many problems with the concept are pointed out, you put god back in the realm beyond human understanding, so the old "it's not supposed to make sense" defense can be trotted out.

[August]

...so the old "it's not supposed to make sense" defense can be trotted out.

So lets just skip to the chase then. I don't think that anyone, and that includes atheists, understands the concept of God beyond the most visceral terms. It is the acme of mans arrogance that he believes he can either define, or dismiss, with authority the existence of something with the power to create the universe.

But on the other hand a book, written by men, sometimes centuries after the events they talk about, that has been translated many times, is obviously not going to be very reliable as a history textbook, but it does and has had for centuries held a strong value as a guide to life.

Is "Treat others as you want to be treated" really that bad a concept?

[antikristuseke]

No it isn't, but stoning people to death because they work on Sunday is. Both are proposed in the bible.

All religious texts contain some good ideas, but none point to any evidence for a creator. While a gods existance is possible there is no reason to assume that to be true because there is no evidence for it.

[August]

No it isn't, but stoning people to death because they work on Sunday is. Both are proposed in the bible.

Which testament?

there is no reason

No reason? I hardly call a worldwide human institution that has survived for thousands of years and that still has over two billion adherents without reason.

[AngusJS]

So lets just skip to the chase then. I don't think that anyone, and that includes atheists, understands the concept of God beyond the most visceral terms.It sounds like you're assuming that the concept has some truth to it right from the get go. And if no one understands the concept, why did you tell us what god does or does not require, and say that he has given us free will. How do you know that?

It is the acme of mans arrogance that he believes he can either define, or dismiss, with authority the existence of something with the power to create the universe. Is it arrogant to expect that the god claim stand or fall on its merits? And if it does fall, is it arrogant to take the position, that until further evidence or reasoning can be provided, the claim can be dismissed, just as the claim regarding the existence of an orbiting tea kettle or the dragon in your garage?

[AngusJS]

No reason? I hardly call a worldwide human institution that has survived for thousands of years and that still has over two billion adherents without reason.Democratic fallacy FTW!

[August]

It sounds like you're assuming that the concept has some truth to it right from the get go

And it sounds like you're assuming that it doesn't. Is there a difference?

Is it arrogant to expect that the god claim stand or fall on its merits? And if it does fall, is it arrogant to take the position, that until further evidence or reasoning can be provided, the claim can be dismissed, just as the claim regarding the existence of an orbiting tea kettle or the dragon in your garage?

Look if you really believe in your flying tea kettle or garage dragon then that's your business. The "God claim" as you call it has not fallen and several billion people on the planet and the countless billions that came before them believe it does indeed have merit. Who are you to say they're wrong?

[antikristuseke]

Which testament?

The first idea is from the new testament and the other from the old testament, unless my memory fails me. Regardless both are in the Bible.


No reason? I hardly call a worldwide human institution that has survived for thousands of years and that still has over two billion adherents without reason.

Just because a lot of people believe in something does not make it true. Evidence is what you need to establish the validity of a claim not the faith of billions.

[AngusJS]

And it sounds like you're assuming that it doesn't. Is there a difference?I'm not assuming it doesn't. I'm saying examine it, then decide what position to take on the matter until further evidence comes in. You seem to be assuming it's valid before it's been examined, and then when it fails that examination, you call the recognition of that failure arrogant.

Look if you really believe in your flying tea kettle or garage dragon then that's your business. The "God claim" as you call it has not fallen and several billion people on the planet and the countless billions that came before them believe it does indeed have merit. Who are you to say they're wrong?Again, that's the democratic fallacy. How many hundreds of millions for how many millenia believed in witches? How many still do even to this day? I guess that must mean witches exist, right? Millions upon millions believe in UFOs. They must be true as well.

If only the truth of a claim could be decided by how many people adhere to it. Life would be so much simpler.

[Sailor Steve]

It is the acme of mans arrogance that he believes he can either define, or dismiss, with authority the existence of something with the power to create the universe.
I'm not as hardcore as some here, but I do have to argue with that conception. I used to be a strong believer, but one of the things that slowly dragged me away was my own reason (such as it is). I'm not an atheist as to me that would also require belief.

The problem I have with the statement "something with the power to create the universe" is that I see no real evidence that the universe was created. Yes, there is order, but that order itself is not necessarily proof that some hand made it so. We can rationalize it that way, but as far as I can see we just don't know, and have no way of finding out.

The Bible is indeed a good guide to life, at least the wisdom parts, but then so are the teachings of Buddha, and the Golden Rule is possibly the best advice ever given, but it has been espoused in essentially the same form by some wise man or another from just about every civilization that has been.

I neither believe nor deny, because I simply don't know; and I have come to distrust people who say they do.

As to the original topic, science for the most part supports evolution, and no science has yet been found that supports any of the ancient Creation stories.

[antikristuseke]

I'm not an atheist as to me that would also require belief.

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods and as such is not a position of faith. Most atheists I have met are agnostic atheists like myself, lack belief in gods, but do not claim that no god can exist and in the face of evidence would change position.
Then there are gnostic atheists, they not only lack belief in gods but make the claim that no god is possible and as such are in a position of faith.

[THE_MASK]

As i said to Stephen Hawking one day " energy = mass x god " . The christmas spirit is flowing .

[Tribesman]

The christmas spirit is flowing .
But what makes it flow?
Is it explainable by science or is there some mystic force?
Did Santa create christmas?
Lots of people believe in Santa and its in lots of books so it must be real.

[Sailor Steve]

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods and as such is not a position of faith. Most atheists I have met are agnostic atheists like myself, lack belief in gods, but do not claim that no god can exist and in the face of evidence would change position.
Then there are gnostic atheists, they not only lack belief in gods but make the claim that no god is possible and as such are in a position of faith.
Interesting distinctions. In my understanding agnostic and atheist are two separate classes, the atheist being one who believes there is no God, and the agnostic being unconvinced either way.

Semantics will get you every time.

[nikimcbee]

Interesting distinctions. In my understanding agnostic and atheist are two separate classes, the atheist being one who believes there is no God, and the agnostic being unconvinced either way.

Semantics will get you every time.

@ Steve, hey man, Merry Christmas. Hope everthing is going well for you.:salute:

[Skybird]

There are people who do not know whether or not gods exist - but they simply refuse to care for the question. they are not interested. Most oftehn this is what is meant with "atheism".

Then there are people who do not only refuse to believe in gods, no matter whether they exist or not, but who are sure they do not exist indeed. This is "anti-theism".

Both atheism and anti-theism usually do not get properly separated in language use, resulting in confusion and misunderstandings quite often.

Some people say that the truth of religious or areligious claims cannot be known for sure. they make a strict distinction between belief and knoweldge. Usually this is referred to as agnosticism. But as far as this leads these people to not care for these questions alltogether, they belong to the first group of Atheists.

And some people simply have not formed an opinion. This also sometimes is called agnosticism, but that simply is misleading. In the meaning of that they do not care enough to form an opinion, they are desinterested, and by that qualify for the description of atheists.

these are the major categories to which the terms atheist, anti-theist and agnostic refer, but sometimes the borderline especially between atheism and anti-theism is blurred, or terms get reversed. For example often the term atheism is used in the meaning of "being sure that no gods exist".

However. Saying that atheism is a belief is like saying that a statement like "There are no pink elephants on the backside of Neptune is a belief, too. What we know is that there is not the smallest reason whatever to assume that there are pink elephants on the dark side of Neptune. To claim this scepticism already is a belief, would give the term "belief" such an inflationary diversity of possible contexts and meanings, that the term by that is rendered meaningless, since it could mean all and everything, then.

Atheism/Anti-theism is no belief, like science is no belief either. The demand that the non-existence of God must be proven in order to falsify the claim of atheism being a belief, is a reversing of the burden of evidence.

It is theist believers claiming that there are things and beings existing whom nobody ever has seen, ever has checked, ever has gained the smallest real evidence for, so since it is believers adding something unproven and unseen to life and all the world beyond man'S mind never has heared of and never has cared for, the burden of evidence is with them - they must prove that their claim of gods existing is correct, not us sceptics must prove that their claim is wrong. And that scepticism is no attitude of "belief" of ours. Nevertheless claiming that it is, just tries to raise the reputation of theism by minimising the reputation of atheism - by lowering it to religious standards. you can see the same mechanism at work in the climate debate, when GW sceptics try to shake scientific results by labelling the science behind them a "belief" only.

When you claim there are invisible green dragons flying around us all the time, and I deny that, then this denial of mine is no belief. Only your claim of green dragons flying around invisibly - only that is the belief.

[August]

Just because a lot of people believe in something does not make it true.

I didn't say the bible was "true", in fact I have pretty much claimed the opposite. No, I said "had value" and there's a difference.

[August]

The problem I have with the statement "something with the power to create the universe"

I see your point Steve. Change that to "operates on a cosmic level" which is probably a better way of putting it.

[antikristuseke]

I didn't say the bible was "true", in fact I have pretty much claimed the opposite. No, I said "had value" and there's a difference.

I didn't mean the bible, but the belief in a god or gods as a whole, should have been more clear, my bad.

[Stealth Hunter]

I lol'd. Partially because I'm hungry.

http://i50.tinypic.com/2qtwnye.jpg

[August]

I didn't mean the bible, but the belief in a god or gods as a whole, should have been more clear, my bad.

Then I would say that anything that has been believed by billions of people is probably something you ought not to be so quick to dismiss.

[antikristuseke]

Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.

[August]

Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.

I never said you had to believe it yourself. You athiests seem to like to misunderstand believers and i'm beginning to think it's deliberate.

[Stealth Hunter]

I never said you had to believe it yourself. You athiests seem to like to misunderstand believers and i'm beginning to think it's deliberate.

He never insinuated anything along those lines. All he's saying is that it doesn't matter if the majority of people believe in something or not; believing in something is still rooted in a faith-based thought processed, not in actual observation and factual grounds. Which is precisely what the argumentum ad populumlogical fallacy states. It's a case of: "If a lot of people believe it to be so, it is/must be so."

[August]

"If a lot of people believe it to be so, it is/must be so."

Which, once again, I did not say. Just repeating it doesn't change that.

[Tribesman]

Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.

Buyt what about Santa? he is popular......

[Stealth Hunter]

Which, once again, I did not say. Just repeating it doesn't change that.

"Then I would say that anything that has been believed by billions of people is probably something you ought not to be so quick to dismiss."

There's little correlation between that and:

"I never said you had to believe it yourself. You athiests seem to like to misunderstand believers and i'm beginning to think it's deliberate."

I was talking about the former when I said:

"If a lot of people believe it to be so, it is/must be so."

[August]

more misunderstanding

"It is/must be so" is not at all the same thing as "lets not be so quick to dismiss". Since you seem to be unable or unwilling to understand the difference I see little reason to keep discussing it with you.

[Fish]

Which, once again, I did not say. Just repeating it doesn't change that.

So what did you say then? :-?

I understand it the same way antikristuseke does.

[Stealth Hunter]

"It is/must be so" is not at all the same thing as "lets not be so quick to dismiss". Since you seem to be unable or unwilling to understand the difference I see little reason to keep discussing it with you.

Well actually you didn't say "lets not be so quick to dismiss". You said "anything that has been believed by billions of people is probably something you ought not to be so quick to dismiss". With that "probably something" in there, you're basically saying that we shouldn't dismiss something believed by a large number of people/majority precisely because so many believe in it. Specifically, the "probably something" insinuates that there is in fact some credence and validity to their beliefs. You didn't give any other reason for us to think otherwise. So if you do mean something else, please, in addition to Fish's request, elaborate as to what you meant by this statement.

[August]

Well actually you didn't say "lets not be so quick to dismiss". You said "anything that has been believed by billions of people is probably something you ought not to be so quick to dismiss". With that "probably something" in there, you're basically saying that we shouldn't dismiss something believed by a large number of people/majority precisely because so many believe in it. Specifically, the "probably something" insinuates that there is in fact some credence and validity to their beliefs. You didn't give any other reason for us to think otherwise. So if you do mean something else, please, in addition to Fish's request, elaborate as to what you meant by this statement.

You're splitting hairs and bringing down my Christmas spirit so I don't think I'll play this game with you any more. Enjoy Christ's gift to you of a day off tomorrow.

[Stealth Hunter]

Splitting hairs? I'm doing no such thing. I'm just simply trying to figure out what kind of cryptic message you're sending. One thing to another. Why you refuse to just give me a sentence or two for an answer is beyond me. Not that it matters at this rate. I mean, you said you weren't going to talk this over anymore. Honestly, I don't even know why I'm even typing this specific post. But whatever.

Merry Sol Invictus, everyone!

[antikristuseke]

August, So far I have understood what you said just as Stealth Hunter has. Not deliberately. but with English being my tretiary language I am bound to misunderstand some things. I would appreciate it if you tried to explain what you ment a little better to me, but for now enjoy your christmas.

[Stealth Hunter]

Relax man, your English is fine. Damn good actually.

[Snestorm]

Enjoy Christ's gift to you of a day off tomorrow.

I'll enjoy my gift to me of a day off.
And I'll thank myself for it too.

[antikristuseke]

Relax man, your English is fine. Damn good actually.

I know, just misunderstandings are a bitch.

[Aramike]

However. Saying that atheism is a belief is like saying that a statement like "There are no pink elephants on the backside of Neptune is a belief, too. What we know is that there is not the smallest reason whatever to assume that there are pink elephants on the dark side of Neptune. To claim this scepticism already is a belief, would give the term "belief" such an inflationary diversity of possible contexts and meanings, that the term by that is rendered meaningless, since it could mean all and everything, then. Indeed, while I fall on the side of the atheist, I believe this point to be wrong. We can reasonably assume there are no pink elephants on the dark side of Neptune through science and observation. The same does not lend itself to the concept of God or a creator.

In fact, one of the biggest problems of modern physics is the misnomer applied to the so-called "Big Bang" event, which is the phrase "Big Bang Theory". In reality, calling such event a "theory" is misleading as it precludes any explanation of "why". Now, there are currently some very promising leads attempting to explain the cause of the creation of our universe (M-theory being the standout), but still - we have only a loose collection of mathematics and little experimentally verified data to support such postulations.

In other words, on the question of creation (and subsequentally, a Creator), ANYTHING and EVERYTHING is a belief.

Hell, modern physics even lends itself to the LIKELIHOOD of INFINITE POSSIBILITIES, which would not preclude a creator. There are even postulations of M-theory and experiments planned that include the CREATION of other universes.

The fact is that, beyond the observable data (things within the 13.7 billion years following the Big Bang), we simply have no solid idea. Whereas, scientifically, we do KNOW that there is minimal likelihood of ANY kind of elephant on Neptune.

Personally, I believe that any Creator was likely random chance, such as the intersection of two parallel "membranes" in our universe. Yet I have no data whatsoever to support that idea - only pretty mathematics (which are still incomplete). That's a belief, and is no more or less valid than the idea of an intelligent creator, in my opinion.

I simply disagree with the theist. I don't assign any burden of proof (as though that's anyone onus to assign in the first place), I don't look down my nose, and I don't disparage any other belief. I merely disagree.

[Nicolas]

I would prefer to die before reject God, something strong in my inside (the Spirit of God) it's something just i can't deny.
You can think i'm a fanatic, but I'm quiet, and i just want to share my experience with God, that i have full certainty is good, of good name, beatiful. :)

We are people made from flesh, but also a soul and spirit, we humans are sick, sick in the soul, that only the sacrifice of Jesus can fix.

God bless you all... Happy Christmas.

And, please start throwing whatever... :DL.

[Stealth Hunter]

^

http://i26.tinypic.com/2i75tsz.jpg

[antikristuseke]

Nicolas:o:stare::nope:

[jimbob]

^

http://i26.tinypic.com/2i75tsz.jpg

This !

[Dowly]

Haha, anyone else getting this ad in this thread? :haha:
http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee274/Finnish_Ferret/Untitled-1-34.jpg

[jimbob]

Haha, anyone else getting this ad in this thread? :haha:
http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee274/Finnish_Ferret/Untitled-1-34.jpg

I can see the Ironclass pic but not about the Cult.

[Dowly]

Oh well, it beats the gay military ads I used to get. :doh:

[Biggles]

I would prefer to die before reject God, something strong in my inside (the Spirit of God) it's something just i can't deny.
You can think i'm a fanatic, but I'm quiet, and i just want to share my experience with God, that i have full certainty is good, of good name, beatiful. :)

We are people made from flesh, but also a soul and spirit, we humans are sick, sick in the soul, that only the sacrifice of Jesus can fix.

God bless you all... Happy Christmas.

And, please start throwing whatever... :DL.

As long as you're not prepared to kill for your God, I see no real problem.:O: It's your life, you decide how to live it. I know I don't think as you, but that's just me:DL

[August]

Oh well, it beats the gay military ads I used to get. :doh:

I didn't know the Finnish Army advertised on Subsim! :D

[Stealth Hunter]

Haha, anyone else getting this ad in this thread? :haha:
http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee274/Finnish_Ferret/Untitled-1-34.jpg

:har:

[miner1436]

I keep getting this one:
http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/56/10025402.jpg

[Skybird]

As long as you're not prepared to kill for your God, I see no real problem. :O:

Maybe I would not kill for my god, but I want public schools to teach his dogma, and want the state to base legislation and laws on his commands, and taxes I do not want to pay, too, but want you to pay for our latest [enter building name].

Glad to hear that all this is no problem for you! :up: Else I would feel really offended! ;)

[Tribesman]

and taxes I do not want to pay, too,but want you to pay for our latest [enter building name].
:har::har::har::har::har:
A religion that carries out charity or social work can apply for tax breaks just like any other eligible charity or social group can.
Religious people constructing a building that is eligible for a grant can apply for exactly the same grants as any people constructing any building that is eligible for a grant.
Your hatred of religion blinds you to simple facts and leads you to making nonsensical statements.

[Snestorm]

Your hatred of religion blinds you to simple facts and leads you to making nonsensical statements.

There are different laws in different lands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax

I see nothing nonsensical in Skybirds post.

[Lt.Fillipidis]

#5 "Mother" Eve's DNA - In 1989 scientists said that they had compared the Mitochondrial DNA of various different races of people and concluded that they all came from a single woman (they called her Eve) who lived from 100,000-200,000 years ago.This story was widely reported in the press. A few years later scientists actually measured the rate of Mitochondrial mutations and discovered that they changed about 20 times faster than was earlier reported. This means that "Eve" did not live 100,000-200,000 years ago but rather only 5,000-10,000.

So, we all come from one mother, we reproduced with our brothers and sisters and we keep up the same way till today, eh?
Well, since the last time i checked, incest was a punishable crime so we're all going to hell. Then why bother? :haha:

[Tribesman]

There are different laws in different lands.

Show me the law that says Skybird has to pay a membership levy to a church that he doesn't belong to

[Snestorm]

Show me the law that says Skybird has to pay a membership levy to a church that he doesn't belong to

You read much more into the sentence than I have written.

[Tribesman]

You read much more into the sentence than I have written.
Slight problem there
Its because you was disputing what I had said about what Skybird has written.
Your link shows that I was correct about Skybirds claims.

So if I write about someone ....."making nonsensical statements."
Then you dispute that with......."I see nothing nonsensical in Skybirds post."...but post a link which shows the statement by Skybird really was nonsense.
You can see clearly that it wasn't a case of me reading too much into what you have written, it is a case of you not reading what it was you were attempting to defend.

[Thomen]

Show me the law that says Skybird has to pay a membership levy to a church that he doesn't belong to

Actually the law in Germany requires everybody with an income to pay a certain amount of "Church Tax", which is nothing but a membership fee. You can get around that by officially leaving your church.

[Skybird]

Is this church tax thing still going on?

In Germany, church tax is mandatory, the state collects it together with social taxes etc. You do not pay it yourself, but you never get handed it out with your wages - it already is substracted.

If you want not to pay that, you have to leave the church.

there are now consdierations to make people not belonging to any church, paying a comparable ammount of money nevertheless, which should be used for the same purposes as the church tax. since the church tax gets spend on church projects and church-run institutions in the widest meaning, this replacement payment for non-members of the church forces them to pay the church nevertheless.

It gets called Ethik-Steuer (ethics tax). If that is no sardonic irony.

Not more and not less I said, meant, indicated, had on my mind, put in words.

It's always the same: once I have somebody on ignore list, I nevertheless still can identify him as the centre of trouble - just by telling it from the reactions of others to him. If people know I do not deal with them anymore (and Tribesman has not been left in unawareness) and do not read them and have deleted their displaying of posts they made - why don't they have one final loud ranting about me, give me a load of cosy names and then simply leave me alone...? Wouldn't this be clever? I mean they are wasting their time, not mine. If others do not quote them, I even do not get aware of what they are calling me up for (and if I do, I do not care).

[Thomen]

Is this church tax thing still going on?



As far as i know, that is still going on. But then again, I haven't paid taxes in Germany for 4 years. Got a letter from the Tax agency a year after I left the country, though.. stating that I owe Church Taxes.. lol

[Tribesman]

Actually the law in Germany requires everybody with an income to pay a certain amount of "Church Tax", which is nothing but a membership fee. You can get around that by officially leaving your church.
As Sky isn't a church person then what does he pay in church tax? Nothing.
Oh look
In Germany, church tax is mandatory
errrrr....
If you want not to pay that, you have to leave the church.

Its mandatory if you choose it...which means its not mandatory.
Which is why Skys rant about having to the pay taxes was rubbbish as he doesn't have to.

If people know I do not deal with them anymore (and Tribesman has not been left in unawareness) and do not read them and have deleted their displaying of posts they made - why don't they have one final loud ranting about me, give me a load of cosy names and then simply leave me alone...? Wouldn't this be clever?
:har::har::har::har:
Just because someone uses an ignore feature it does not entitle them to write rubbish without it being addressed.
What would be clever is if you could actually handle topics and not have to invent "facts"

[Safe-Keeper]

Enjoy Christ's gift to you of a day off tomorrow.Yeah, 'cause people totally weren't celebrating Yule already when the Christians arrived...

As long as you're not prepared to kill for your God, I see no real problem.:O: It's your life, you decide how to live it. I know I don't think as you, but that's just me:DLMhm. Believe what you want, doesn't matter so long as you don't get hurt :) . The Judea-Christian religions aren't for me, but I realize they are enriching other peoples' lives.

For example, if one got seriously ill and was to pray while hospitalized... no problem.
Cancer patient praying instead of getting hospitalized... problem.

[Task Force]

Ya know... this religion stuff isnt too bad... I got 2 and weeks off of school cause of it.:rotfl2:

[August]

Cancer patient praying instead of getting hospitalized... problem.

Problem for who? And what do you propose to do about solving that problem?

[Safe-Keeper]

Ya know... this religion stuff isnt too bad... I got 2 and weeks off of school cause of it.:rotfl2:There's no question that many religious figures have contributed greatly to the moral codes of their time.

Of course, this doesn't make the supernatural part any more true:p.

[antikristuseke]

Problem for who? And what do you propose to do about solving that problem?

I am inclined to agree with August here, a person should be free to choose him or herself weather to get medical treatment or to do nothing productive.

[Onkel Neal]

http://www.qwantz.com/comics/comic2-1647.png

[AngusJS]

Problem for who? And what do you propose to do about solving that problem?It's a problem for this kid:

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/44594367.html?elr=KArksUUUycaEacyU

And it was a problem for this kid, who died because his parents exercised their First Amendment rights to be morons:

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/06/us/in-child-deaths-a-test-for-christian-science.html

[Platapus]

Is the solution that all children must be raised Atheist until they reach the age of majority?

[Skybird]

Is the solution that all children must be raised Atheist until they reach the age of majority?
Neither this - nor indoctrinate them with fantasy ideology and doctrine-based agendas.

Must the grass been told how to grow, and fishes been shown how to swim in water? Save the kids from all this indoctriantion and intoxication, save them from too much of our oh so wonderful consummerism and civilisational poisoning, and when they have grown old enough to ask questions, refer to thse questions and show them how they could find their own answer. and often, under these circumstances, you will find that then they start to think about ethics and philosophy all by themselves.

It is one of the biggest lies being told that religion is a preconditon for developing ethics and morals, and altruism. We see altruistic behavior and social cooperation even in chimps, several birds, and in other higher animals species, mammals and birds. None of them has ever heared of Jesus, or Buddha, or Islam, or atheism - stop thinking in these damn ideologic terms and categories, avoid them like a poison (that you do not wish to just replace with another poison). Like you have left behind playing with shovel and sand and plastic moulds, leave behind these terms and ideologies as well. they represent an evolutionary state that you, as adults of the 21 century living in the Western world, can be expected to have advanced beyond, and have left behind. You also do not believe in Santa Claus anymore, and that the stork is bringing the babies.


Du musst das Leben nicht verstehen

Du musst das Leben nicht verstehen,
dann wird es werden wie ein Fest.
Und lass dir jeden Tag geschehen
so wie ein Kind im Weitergehen von jedem Wehen
sich viele Blüten schenken lässt.

Sie aufzusammeln und zu sparen,
das kommt dem Kind nicht in den Sinn.
Es löst sie leise aus den Haaren,
drin sie so gern gefangen waren,
und hält den lieben jungen Jahren
nach neuen seine Hände hin.

Rainer Maria Rilke

[August]

Humans are neither plants nor fish but instinct only goes so far. Mammals by and large teach and demonstrate just about everything to their offspring.

[Snestorm]

If parents, and hopefuly their children, are making a decision based on facts, and thought, that's one situation, and the state is limmitted in it's ability to intercede.

If the decision making process has been subverted to some nonsensicle ideoligy, THAT is an entirely different situation, and the state has a duty to intercede. Nobody should be endangered in the name of somebody elses beliefs.

I don't see a "one size fits all" solution. Each case must stand on it's own merrits.

[Platapus]

If parents, and hopefuly their children, are making a decision based on facts, and thought, that's one situation, and the state is limmitted in it's ability to intercede.

If the decision making process has been subverted to some nonsensicle ideoligy, THAT is an entirely different situation, and the state has a duty to intercede. Nobody should be endangered in the name of somebody elses beliefs.

I don't see a "one size fits all" solution. Each case must stand on it's own merrits.

Interesting that you would use the word "fact" when discussing a religious decision which may be based on "faith".

One person's nonsensical ideology may be another person's deep faith.

Who gets to decide what is "nonsensical Ideology" and what is "sensible Ideology"?

[Snestorm]

Interesting that you would use the word "fact" when discussing a religious decision which may be based on "faith".

One person's nonsensical ideology may be another person's deep faith.

Who gets to decide what is "nonsensical Ideology" and what is "sensible Ideology"?

Facts, and circumstances are of the physical word.
Ideoligy is generaly not of the physical world.

Issueing some-one else a death sentence, "in the name of god", is not a good idé.

[Skybird]

Interesting that you would use the word "fact" when discussing a religious decision which may be based on "faith".

One person's nonsensical ideology may be another person's deep faith.

Who gets to decide what is "nonsensical Ideology" and what is "sensible Ideology"?

Facts can be approached by critical analysis, reason, logic, direct observation, they can be demonstrated to be false or right, by proving them, or falsifying them.

Religious ideologies not only cannot be approiached this way, but even refuse to be approached this way, they just make arbitrary claims based on hear-say and then want these random claims being taken as the ultimate truth that people should just believe, most often for the religions earthly, powerpolitical interest.

Nonsensical by content that is indeed. Powerpolitically, as a tactic to secure power and influence, it makes a lot of sense indeed, psychologically, since it has been shown to collect a lot of followers being attracted by this method.

Securing as facts, needs brains. Theistic, organised, institutionalised religion refuses brains.

And faith (=Glaube). Just believing something, is one thing, and means nothing. Trust - is something very different, and is an empirically justified confidence based on past, repeated observations. You better trust in facts, not in contents of beliefs that you just believe, or not, without being able or being wanted to examine and analyse them. Putting trust into some random hear-say or relgious dogma, is no trust, but easyminded folly. You could as well play roulette. that you match the winning number, means not there is any link between your bet and the marble. It only means that - you were lucky.