Agreed. Religion should not be the cause for suffering. Cloning equaling no-no, though... Is a give-in in my mind. If we try and make more of people, it goes against the old, 'everyone is special ' routine. also, I would like to think that we're better off without it. The only people to get cloned for medical emergency would be those rich enough to afford it. And why would you want the bastards who run this god-forsaken world life?

Stem-cell research isn't labeled bad for the sole reason Christianity deems people as having the right to life, but because the morals, untampered by religion, say taking life is wrong. I know that not every kind takes life, but the ones that do don't have the right to do that. Ukkh I don't want to get into the subject of parent's rights to kill their child because they aren't convenient.

Religion, politics, they shouldn't mix.

Sorry, Please delete this post, accidentally double clicked.

Cloning and Stem-Cell Research go hand-in-hand.

When someone thinks of cloning they will instantly think of making an exact copy of a human. Only half right. You don't really make a copy, but rather grow the cells twice - with Dolly the Sheep they took some cells from an embryo, put them in an unused egg, and started off the process of the embryo growing into a foetus, and so on. Even if we do get to the stage where we clone humans without any faults (Dolly aged faster and developed premature arthritis, for example), it will still take decades for them to grow. Also, appearance doesn't make you "special". It's the way you think, the way you act, speak, your personality. Not even a clone can be the same because they will develop under different circumstances, and go through different experiences. If appearance DID make you special, then what can you say about identical twins?

As for Stem-Cells. You cannot take life until life has been given. Stem cells are basically cells that can develop into ANY type of cell - brain cell, skin cell, hair cell, gamete. They are taken from embryo's.

Embryo's are not alive. I would argue that a foetus is not alive until 21 weeks - when it can survive outside the womb. Not necessarily on it's own, just outside the womb. I think Christianity (or Islam) states that life starts after 120 days or something. Until the time the foetus is "alive", you can't "kill" it. If it were unhampered then we'd have efficient ways of extracting the stem cells and cloning them without destroying the embryo by now. As it is, these methods are only just being developed.

I can get argumentative about this, sorry.

A foetus is not theoretically a child until it has been born. I'll accept 21 weeks or older, but only because that is when it can survive outside the womb. Until then it is not alive and so cannot be killed. Which is why abortion is allowed up until 21 weeks (24 on the absolute outside).

---

And, yes. Anyone who mixes religion and politics should be shot.

Fine. The parent's right to annihilate their fetus. Which in my eyes is wrong because it would inevitably develop into a child.


Sorry for getting off topic...

MJ, if there was to be a wholly atheist society, the outcome would be communist to an extent, as you would not have freedom of religion. America would be fine as long as we didn't have religious battles with oil-rich countries and integration of religion and our leadership.

1. atnas your signature scaresm e
2. The bible says waaay to many things that occure exactly has they're written in real life, and now its highly doubtfull that its all coincidence
the bible is not bull shit is the mind of god and there ar emore reasons that the pope is part of a fake religion i mean, he tells you many things wihtout reciting the bible 2. he says "dont this or don't do that" but then you catch him in a bar doing exactly what he said not to do

it shows much of fake religion, religion s are based on the bible
even other religions base theyre beliefs in other bibles
wihtout bibles religion has no basis
bible is the basis, the way god communicates with humans
because his glory would kill you if he showed himself to you or communicated directly with you.

Brainwashed much? I smell a fundamentalist.:)

Judaism->Catholicism->then Protestants.

So if we are so false, why is it you have the same faith, but as a 'religious moderate' as MJ nicely puts it? You've modified a religion to make it based on a book. Human error abounds within books, even if it is the bible.

So, you are not one to call any religion fake based upon the fact it is not your own religion. Mine could be fake as well, but that would just mean that yours is totally off, now wouldn't it?. We cannot know.

Anyway, the thread was about how religion is a false pursuit. Back on topic time. XD

Almost everything you said is just speculation or bullshit unsupported by facts. Try again.

I don't know much about Islam. I have read very little of the Qur'an. That said, what I do know is that certain people justify bringing terror upon people by that religion, which makes Islam a dangerous religion. Faith is, of course, personal, and interpretations will vary. That does not necessarily make one wrong, even if it is a violent interpretation. Most Islamic extremists have studied the Qur'an far more than us, which, in my opinion, makes their interpretation of the Qur'an more valid than our own.

Again, interpretations vary on a personal basis. Some people act out of ignorance, but their are those who have studied the Bible in depth, and continue their fanatic behavior.

Thank you.


Abortion has been an issue since people have known the methods of aborting. But, I agree, abortion is still a relevant issue.

Abortion is not a method of avoiding pregnancy, it is a method of ending it. As far as I know, it is the only method we know that intentionally ends a pregnancy.

Please refer to paragraph 4, and Russell's teapot analogy.

I have no proof that god does not exist. By the dictionary definition, I am not an atheist, I am agnostic. However, if that is the case, I am also agnostic about fairies, unicorns, Russell's teapot, and the flying spaghetti monster. I am as sure about the nonexistence of god as I am about anything. When I am asked if I am an atheist, I nod an affirmation. Why? If someone were to ask you if you believed in unicorns and you answered with anything but a resounding no, it would be social suicide. Why should this not apply to god as well? Nearly everyone today is an atheist about Zeus or Thor. Can their existence be disproved? No. But that does not mean that anyone is going to take them seriously. I simply extend this logic and apply it to an Abrahamic god.

How can I possibly answer this question? I don't know what a legitimate practice of Christianity is. In fact, most Christians can't agree on what a legitimate practice of Christianity is. Catholics will assert their legitimacy, Baptists will assert their's, and Mormon's will follow suit. I suppose that if Catholicism were considered the legitimate practice of Christianity, then I could cite plenty of references, however this is not the case. That question is like asking, "Why is a unicorn hollow?" The question does not really have an answer. I will, however, do my best to answer based on some presuppositions.

The only practice of Christianity that I will consider leigitimate comes from the Bible itself. Now the Bible is a violent book. For instance, consider Deuteronomy 13:6-10

There is no ambiguity in that. Not only does that advocate killing your wife or child, it specifies how. It would be a gross misrepresentation of what is said in the Bible to attempt to interpret this metaphorically. If this was intended to be figurative, then nothing in the Bible can be interpreted as truth, because it is entirely too vague. If this were meant to be taken figuratively, then the Bible serves no purpose as a religious text. A legitimate practice of Christianity would include carrying out the acts advocated by Deuteronomy 13:6-10. Considering this, we should be asking how is it possible that a legitimate practice of Christianity hasn't caused more wars, not the other way around.

I will respond to the rest of the posts tomorrow. It's 3:30 AM and I'm tired.

Hahahahaha.

Completely, and utterly wrong.

The Bible is in no way the "mind of God". No Holy book of any religion is the "mind of God".

True, the Qur'an was given to Muhammed by God, dictated even, and so can be said to be the true "words of God", but not mind.

The Christian Bible, on the other hand, has sweet FA in it that has anything to do with the "mind of God". It is a book written by mortals, with no divine link to their God. It is a book that gives accounts of historical events - whether factitious events or complete fiction. It is just a book.

---

Oh, ever heard of a chap called "Nostradamus"? Yeah, he was a crackpot who supposedly prophesised this that and the other. But wait! His prophecies were so obscure that with the right imagination, and being able to assume things about events in the past, people can interpret any of his prophecies to be true.

One such 'prophecy' talked about "the eagle crumbling in flame". Let's see:

Flame...flame... oooh! Fire!
Eagle... lots of things have an Eagle for a Symbol - Hitler used an eagle on German medals on his standards (flag poles). Ooooh, whaddya know, America like eagles too!!
Crumbling can mean any number of things... in this case I shall assume it is talking about, say...oh what could it be? The Twin Towers!

With imagination, knowing past events, and being able to interpret things my way, I have proven that Nostradamus, when he spoke about "the eagle crumbling in flame" he was obviously prophecising about the destruction of the Twin Towers.

Come on, give us an example of the Bible prophecising something, not vaguley like Nostradamus, but to the absolute letter.

Let it be known I'm posting these on behalf of people who want to play from the outside.

I could have predicted that the human race would still wage wars 2000 years ago as well, however it is quite impressive that the Bible predicted this, because I have seen no such passage in the Bible that would suggest that. Please explain to me what passage predicts the wars in 2006?

Should we kill the second-born identical twin to preserve the first-born's "specialty?"

Perhaps this would be an accurate portrayal of the world immediately after cloning goes mainstream, but it is possible that the cost of cloning will go down substantially in the future, and its benefits will be extended even to the common man.

A lack of religion will not make a society communist. Communism is an economic system. You can have a society that practices religion and communism at the same time, or a society that is wholly atheist yet capitalist. However, I am not promoting a society in which you are forced to be an atheist. I would personally find such a society repugnant. What I would like to see is more people basing their lives off of reason rather than faith by choice, not by force.

I will get to the rest after my next class.

Yes, lets make a BBQ out of it.

I was being sarcastic when I said everyone is special. Forgot to Italicize, sorry.

Such as what? We're not talking about relevance anymore, we're apparently talking about prophecies, so the abortion example has no bearing. I'm not sure what you mean, so you want to provide some examples?

If there is a God, the Bible is certainly not his mind.

What?

Then he most certainly can not be omnipotent, can he?

KagomJack, why don't you bring these people inside?

Zelaron does not accurately represent society as a whole. Zelaron consists mainly of teenagers and men in their early 20s who are predominantly atheists or agnostics. If I were to post this on a more mainstream forum, I would be severely chastised due to the subject of my article, not because of any flaws in the article itself. I can not think of a better paradigm to portray the concept of immunity to criticism.

Incorrect. A belief is something that is not based on evidence. Everything I have presented in my article is based on evidence. The possibility exists that our theories are incorrect, as I have already stated, but they are based on observable facts, unlike religions. If I drop an apple from the air, it is not a belief that it will fall under normal circumstances, it is a fact in every sense of the word. Of course the possibility exists that the apple may simply suspend itself from the air by magic, but it would be ridiculous to assume that, and even more ridiculous to spend time learning about that possibility.

You obviously have no understanding of evolution, and apparently an underdeveloped grasp of the English language as well. Nowhere in that paragraph do I imply that recognizing the theory of evolution is a leap of faith. I only state that fossilized evidence is coincidental to evolution, not consequential as is commonly believed. There is a massive amount of evidence that supports evolution that is consequential to evolution, however fossils do not match that criteria.

I gave them a link, but it's their choice to click it and go here.

Out of sheer curiosity, are these just random friends of yours, or what?

or just figments of your imagination?

Friends on another (conservative) forum.

No no, those stay in my head.

well then hope it goes well(if anything at all)