dwar0123

I think most scientist would quibble with your claim that we can't detect dark matter. They have created 3 dimensional maps of the stuff. It doesn't emit photons, so we don't detect it directly, but that isn't the only way to detect something. You can detect someone hiding behind a couch by the shadow they cast, it may not be as good as seeing them directly, you may not be able to infer as much detail, but you are still detecting them. The gravity of dark matter distorts the path that light travels from source to us, this distortion can be quite severe in some cases, allowing you to map out the gravitational density of the matter that lies between you and the source and as the intervening matter emits no photons of its own, they call it dark matter. Same with dark energy, something is causing the expansion of the Universe to accelerate, we can see it accelerating over time, that is a form of detection.

I believe it was written, does that count?

Are you referring to the pussy riot incident in Russia? Wasn't that politically motivated?

Has that ever happened? I have heard of church burnings, but I always thought it was one religious sect doing it to another, or here in the US, whites doing it to blacks for purely racial reasons(ie not religious)

It wasn't my intent to say any such thing and if it came off that way I apologize. I am a little puzzled by what led you to think I took anything other then this statement from you. Most Christians don't read the bible literally. But for those that do, having non-believers hanging around your children can be a scary prospect. I am sure you get a long just fine with most Christians, it isn't them to whom I was referring. It is the one's you don't talk to, probably because the conversations are invariable uncomfortable. The ones to whom you felt it was wrong that they were raising their children this way. Parents right to teach their religion to their children is protected by the constitution. To my way of thinking, if you outlaw the sincerely devout, you outlaw religion.

How do you propose enforcing that? Forced reversible sterilization for everyone? How would you prevent people from just getting it illegally reversed? How do you deal with immigration, sterilization centers at all entry points? Or do you just want to fine/jail/educate people for having children while unlicensed? What would be the intent of the licensing? Would it be to limit dogma's that parents are allowed to teach their children? How would you enforce that? How would you determine which dogma's are acceptable? I think legislate leaves way more to the imagination then you intend :)

If my child was actually bothered by it, I would certainly do something, the what would depend on far more details then are presented here. In the far more likely case that my child is not bothered by it I would hope my child would tolerate the other kids beliefs. I have to question the sincerity of your own beliefs if you think being told you will burn in hell actually rises to the level of verbal violence. I didn't think you believed in hell. Also, I tire of the word intolerance. I was merely using the phraseology of the person to whom I was replying. This isn't the best word to describe what we are talking about, it is a loaded term meant to cast the opposing viewpoint in a negative light. Lets use the phrase sincerely devout.

Not sure what that has to do with tolerating parents teaching their children about their intolerant religion. Of course I wouldn't teach my children to tolerate bullying.

You can crouch your viewpoint in terms of intolerant vs tolerant just as the religious can crouch their viewpoint in terms of being with God and being outside of God. Would you tolerate someone who allows their child to randomly spray bullets in a classroom? Look at it from their perspective, to not believe in God is to condemn their child to eternal damnation. If you really believe that then allowing your child to be corrupted by the kid who doesn't believe is risking far worse than death itself. If you really believe this, could you easily tolerate that risk? You don't believe in their version of hell, so to you it doesn't seem like a risk at all, but to them it is EVERYTHING. I am not trying to change your viewpoint about religion, we actually agree, I am just trying to point out that I don't think you are really appreciating the other point of view and maybe you should be teaching your kids to be tolerant even of the intolerant.

I dunno, it sounds like you are dangerously close to saying that your way of raising kids is the right way, and their way is the wrong way. You may not be teaching your kids that the religious kids are evil, but you are sure coming close to saying their parents are.

Shrug, it's a yes or no question. Give an answer and say its as God decreed. As the context for a meaningful conversation doesn't exist the question is in all honesty rather boring to ask anyone not actually invested in the topic.

Given the nature of God, existing outside our Universe, setting the rules for it, all powerful and all knowing. I object to you applying a must upon him. That is a limitation of his powers. We may not be able to see how you could have one without the other, but we are not God nor are we privy to all the possible variations by which the Rules of the Universes could have been formed.

So it doesn't :) I like to think I always leave someone an easy way out.

Laugh, it may well be a silly explanation, though I am bemused by the idea that you think it is a coping mechanism. Deism is born out of wonderment, not out of a need to deal with anything; I am sure your pity is very misguided. But don't let me abuse you(to much) of your own perception of superiority for your righteous belief, pity away.

Oh I understand the thinking that I criticize, it may just not be your thinking. :) While I posit wonder about the Universe and some doubt about it's origins, I do suppose Phil was positing something a little more affirmative than I. Simple mistake of responding from my point of view and not the point of view of the person you were replying too. And while I am familiar with your take on atheism; that is a fair paraphrasing of Dawkin himself, I would be curious to hear you articulate what you perceive to be the difference between that and agnosticism. I also believe that many atheist that I know and know of posit a more positive denial of God then you just did.

It isn't what we can't understand that is causing awe, it is what we do understand. Part of what we understand is the many things that we don't understand; things which we will surely understand someday. It is really, really sloppy thinking to deny a possibility based specifically on a lack of knowledge.

You have any children? Really not that hard to replicate. Understanding is another thing :) It could be random, that's the funny thing about infinity and our inability to truly grasp the concept, given enough chances.. I dunno, causes me to have doubts though, that's for sure.

I put strongly disbelieve - as that reflects my opinion towards any organized religious belief. Though if I were to be completely accurate, my stance towards deism is somewhat ambivalent. When lost in wonder at the sheer awesomeness of the Universe, I have to admit I find their viewpoint attractive. I do not call myself one, I still label myself agnostic, but I am far closer to deism then full blown atheism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

Of course most organized Christian religions have abandoned a strict interpretation of the bible, with all that we have learned and morally advanced as a society sense they were written, doing otherwise would be the downfall of their organization. That is entirely my point. When the only people who are actually following the religious texts are called fanatics, then what does that say about the religion? Religions by their nature are absolute and any divinely revealed truth would also be absolute. If the churches teachings are evolving along side the ever increasing understanding of man, then it is the work of man not the work of God. In fact, it is pretty easy to argue that for much of history, the churches teachings have been a drag on the ever increasing understanding of man.

I think you are hallucinating :) You have never been able to upvote your own, you can't upvote barmar(one of the others you might have noticed) cause he is an admin and I am pretty sure you can't upvote debrose's because you already have :)

There have been plenty of mass murderers, heck just read the old testament, many of them are recorded with glee as having been done for the glory of God. But really, have you never read history, at all? They might not have called it mass murder back then but when someone comes in and slaughters everyone, that is still what it is. It really wasn't until the enlightenment that societal norms shifted in such a way that people took offense to mass murderers occurring in general rather than just objecting to others trying to mass murder their people. As for the sheer numbers obtained by your examples that's purely a result of greatly increased populations and the technology by which to organize and orchestrate the ill deeds.

The way I read Christian theology, if you really believe the texts, truly believe, which when it comes to religion, is the only way to believe. Then you will act in a way that the rest of the world would call fanatical.

<----Goes to get the popcorn

Saying atheists are more apt to commit mass murder due to their lack of a moral code tends to piss atheists off. Would piss off any group so singled out.

The 2nd amendment. Nowhere does it specifically grant individuals the right to bear arms, That was an interpretation by the Supreme court. If societal needs changes, the Supreme court is free to reinterpret. This won't be easy, as precedent weighs heavily upon the judicial system, but far easier then repealing the 2nd amendment.