(November 17, 2008 at 11:37 pm)Daystar Wrote: No ... I know you were making a joke, but it is more like this.

1. Theism is nothing more than believing in God.

2. Atheism is nothing more than not believing in God.

3. Both are religious in nature.

4. Pirates are murderous theives.

5. Jason is not a piriate.

6. Jason likes the romantic adventurous idea of the pirate.

*Looks temporarily blank*
Err...yes...of course... I was uh.... joking. That's it... joking.
And I *am* too a Pirate! I would like to see you prove that I'm *not* a pirate, hmmm?

With regard to Proposition 8, I would think that of more immediate concern to the constituents of California and the conservative right wingers would be the impending moral danger posed by the possibility of union between man and duck. For too long this issue has been overlooked - man and duck in holy union, disgraceful! In my day a guy raped knocked up met a chick in the local park, offered a couple goats to her parents for a downpayment, married her and kept her in the kitchen to cook and clean where those bitches belong dammit! where they are best utilised. Something has to be done about this travesty of man marrying beast. Just last week I went to my local store, only for the shop assistant to start disclosing her personal relations with her *cat* for goodness sake! It undermines the very fabric of the union between man and woman! What are they thinking!? Death to the infidels! Death! DEATH!
Although I'm an old fashioned kinda guy, I think I'm reasonable, and I think a reasonable approach should be taken by the courts to effectively remove this abhorrent behaviour from our society.

Atheism cannot be organized. It would be like organized non-belief in Santa Claus. Everything we do in terms of activism can only really be a reaction to the activism of organized religion. Its like asking why trains are never early. At best, they can only run on time, and nobody's perfect.

---

Quote:California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today urged the California Supreme Court to accept review of the legal challenges to Proposition 8 and for this matter of widespread concern to be "promptly resolved."
"The profound importance of the issues raised by Proposition 8 warrants that this matter be reviewed and promptly resolved by the California Supreme Court." Attorney General Brown said.

In a set of briefs filed with the Court today, Attorney General Brown wrote that: "review by this Court is necessary to ensure uniformity of decision, finality and certainty for the citizens of California. The constitutionality of the change created by Proposition 8 impacts whether same-sex marriages may issue in California and whether same-sex marriages from other states will be recognized here. There is significant public interest in prompt resolution of the legality of Proposition 8. The Court can provide certainty and finality in this matter."

Typically, matters are brought before lower courts before the Supreme Court hears the case. However, petitioners have asked the Supreme Court to accept the review directly to bring an early resolution to the matter.

Attorney General Brown opposes a stay on Proposition 8, arguing that it would increase uncertainty related to marriages performed in California. The Attorney General's brief states that "the public interest would be best served not by issuing a temporary stay, but by an expedited resolution of the important issues raised by the petitions."

Attorney General Brown continues to believe that same-sex marriages performed between June 17 and November 4, 2008 remain valid and will be upheld by the Court.

(November 18, 2008 at 1:42 am)infidel666 Wrote: Atheism cannot be organized. It would be like organized non-belief in Santa Claus. Everything we do in terms of activism can only really be a reaction to the activism of organized religion. Its like asking why trains are never early. At best, they can only run on time, and nobody's perfect.

What if it were a religion? In most countries religions have certain amen-ities . I know that for some reason atheist can't stand the thought of being a religion, but why?

---

(November 18, 2008 at 1:13 am)Jason Jarred Wrote: With regard to Proposition 8, I would think that of more immediate concern to the constituents of California and the conservative right wingers would be the impending moral danger posed by the possibility of union between man and duck. For too long this issue has been overlooked - man and duck in holy union, disgraceful! In my day a guy raped knocked up met a chick in the local park, offered a couple goats to her parents for a downpayment, married her and kept her in the kitchen to cook and clean where those bitches belong dammit! where they are best utilised. Something has to be done about this travesty of man marrying beast. Just last week I went to my local store, only for the shop assistant to start disclosing her personal relations with her *cat* for goodness sake! It undermines the very fabric of the union between man and woman! What are they thinking!? Death to the infidels! Death! DEATH!
Although I'm an old fashioned kinda guy, I think I'm reasonable, and I think a reasonable approach should be taken by the courts to effectively remove this abhorrent behaviour from our society.

HERE! HERE!

When it comes to proposition 8 I am 100 percent for it.These are my reasons: 1.It pisses the religious people off and anything that pisses them off brings me great joy.2.What you do in your bedroom and who or what you do it with is none of my business.I am a pretty simple guy and believe that everyone is entitled to do what makes them happy.If you are gay and the opposite sex is what makes you happy then who am I to try to regulate who you can be with and who you can marry?3.Although marriage is said to be a religious institution I dont see anything wrong with a gay marriage as long as both parties are happy and are not hurting anyone in the process.That does not include disapproving family members.You do what makes you happy and if your family can't accept that then maybe they need to be shown the door.Also, if you are married I believe that you should get all the rights that come with a "regular" so called "normal" marriage.Why should you be discriminated against?

(November 18, 2008 at 11:30 am)chatpilot Wrote: When it comes to proposition 8 I am 100 percent for it.

Reading the rest of your text, I suppose this is a mistake, and you are against it?

(November 18, 2008 at 11:00 am)Daystar Wrote: What if it were a religion? In most countries religions have certain amen-ities . I know that for some reason atheist can't stand the thought

A religion is something that explains the nature and purpose of the universe. Atheists do not agree on anything on these points other than no god was involved. Therein lies the problem.

I'd also never like to be part of a religion that based it's beliefs on faith. I'd be happy to join a religion that only used scientific methods for basing beliefs. No faith = great!

(November 18, 2008 at 1:24 pm)Tiberius Wrote: A religion is something that explains the nature and purpose of the universe. Atheists do not agree on anything on these points other than no god was involved. Therein lies the problem.

I'd also never like to be part of a religion that based it's beliefs on faith. I'd be happy to join a religion that only used scientific methods for basing beliefs. No faith = great!

I don't understand the skeptics view on religion. I only understand that they hate it as much as I do. You say that a religion is something that explains the nature and purpose of the universe. If I look at what I would call religion and what I would call science, I would say that that applies to science not religion.

If I were to ask you what you think the nature and purpose of the universe is you would use science rather than religion to address the question.

You say that Atheists don't agree on anything on these points except that there is no God and I say theists don't agree on anything on these points except that there is a God. So what? Doesn't matter.

You say therein lies the problem? Why? Science doesn't agree on all of it and you call that evidence. That doesn't make any sense, does it?

But you don't want faith? Look - I didn't say anything about faith. Why interject the word faith into the conversation? Can you name a religion or two that doesn't incorporate faith? When I hear stuff like that I think it sounds like someone has been brainwashed - possibly by their own hatred of something. Usually their own former religion.

I know that it is very difficult to accept but scientific method leaves a great deal of room for interpretation and faith. You can't keep calling something factual and evidence when it changes into something else that can't be tested, proved blah. blah. blah. Just because a bunch of science minded people 'Believe' in it.

Religion is any object of conscientious regard and pursuit. If you have faith only in 'scientific method' then the variations of possible error that would seem to divide 'the indipendant minded athiests' within that religion itself wouldn't be divisive because the object would be the pursuit itself.

I think that I am going to go ahead and form an Atheistic religion ...

A religion is a primitive gestalt delusion held in common by people who are literally insane. Go smear shit on your face and dance around the campfire already.

(November 19, 2008 at 1:12 am)infidel666 Wrote: A religion is a primitive gestalt delusion held in common by people who are literally insane. Go smear shit on your face and dance around the campfire already.

ROFL!

*Takes out a jar of faeces, rubs it on his face, strips down and begins a naked dance around the fire*

(November 18, 2008 at 1:55 pm)Daystar Wrote: I know that it is very difficult to accept but scientific method leaves a great deal of room for interpretation and faith. You can't keep calling something factual and evidence when it changes into something else that can't be tested, proved blah. blah. blah. Just because a bunch of science minded people 'Believe' in it.

When something reaches a point it can't (currently) be tested then, yes, there is plenty of faith & interpretation going on.

In which case the "theory" is no more than an idea of how something *might* work. If more evidence is discovered that gives the theory more (or less) credence then there is less room for interpretation (and therefore less "faith" required).

My skeptical view of religion (and indeed any supernatural thing) is simply that the person is a bit deluded and mis-interpreting something (and I'm sure they think the same of me!).