Omicron, don't pretend like churches (especially in the US) don't preach certain voting habits to their parishioners, and that some of them don't say that liberals are evil, that evolution is against the word of God, etc, etc. Gimme a break. This activity exists, and it is wrong.

Isn't religion supposed to be about love? About accepting people?

Would Jesus throw a firebomb into an abortion clinic? Would he tie up gay people to the back of his truck and drive around with them dragging the ground in the back? Would he start a war against others for their oil, and give defense contracts to all of his friends?

I think religion has lost it's way. Religion today is little more than a tool that rich people use to get poor people to do what they want. It has nothing to do with it's founding beliefs anymore, and the fact that it can make perfectly ordinary, smart people denounce rational scientific theories and facts is a testament to that.

"Omicron, don't pretend like churches (especially in the US) don't preach certain voting habits to their parishioners, and that some of them don't say that liberals are evil, that evolution is against the word of God, etc, etc. Gimme a break. This activity exists, and it is wrong."

These are all matters of human fallibilities, Fred. Ministers are as human as the rest of us, and as prone to mistakes. Voting choices are a matter of choice, and while some ministers may express their views from the pulpit, this is no different from the scientists who post similar things in Scientific American editorials. (Urging stem-cell research legislation opinions, for instance)

Liberals are not evil any more than homosexuals are - misguided, yes; but not evil. Any preacher who says that, I believe is wrong.

Belief or disbelief in macroevolution is also a bit of a sticky concept. My father is a stern proponent of macroevolution, while my mother is an opponent of it (as am I). I believe the Bible is to be taken literally on this issue; but some do not - again, this is a matter of personal belief, and has absolutely no bearing on salvation. It's a pointless debate because it doesn't matter, and because we'll all know the answer in the end.

"Isn't religion supposed to be about love? About accepting people?" Christianity is about love - about God's love for all of us sinners. It's about saving people and getting them to heaven - NOT about accepting everybody's beliefs. Why can you not separate the sin from the person in your thoughts? You aren't defined by what you do, and it is possible to change what you believe. Yes, we sin - we aren't supposed to, and if things were just, we'd all be headed to Hell right now for it. But we have no requirement, request, or reason to accept people's sins - and indeed, the Bible says that we should attempt to keep people from sinning. Tolerance is fine when it's about other people's non-sinning choices and about people's unchangable conditions - but when it comes to choosing to sin, we aren't going to, told to, or supposed to tolerate that.

"Would Jesus throw a firebomb into an abortion clinic? Would he tie up gay people to the back of his truck and drive around with them dragging the ground in the back?"

Jesus would not kill abortion practicioners or homosexuals. If any Christian believes that, I would have to question whether he is a Christian or a cultist. What Jesus would do, and what I try to do, and what 99.99% or so of Christians try to do, is to save such people - to get them to accept the eternal life that is offered freely, if they will just accept it.

Yes, there are people who profess Christianity and believe that violence is the answer - but these are the unusual cases - the exceptions to the rule, whereas in other religions *cough* islam *cough* you see much, much, much more of this.

"Would he start a war against others for their oil,"

Do you actually believe that the United States went into the Iraq War for OIL? If so, how come the gas prices have gone up? How come we pay so much for the stuff we supposedly stole; how come none of the dozens of reporters over there constantly watching have seen the massive fleet of oil tankers it would take to haul the stuff over here - and how come we're still there, defending the people of that nation and helping them rebuild after ousting one of the most savage regimes in history? That story just doesn't add up, Fred - I'm astounded that an otherwise sane, rational person can believe something so ludicrous.

"Religion today is little more than a tool that rich people use to get poor people to do what they want."

I have had six or eight pastors over the past eighteen years. NONE of them have been rich - they have lived off their congregations' donations (and only part of that) - a total of about $30,000 a year. Who are the "rich people"? We don't follow the Pope. Our money goes to the missionaries, for church maintenance (specifically discussed and approved for each part by the entire voting congregation), and for outreach. How can you validate your claim? The Bible and the teaching thereof are still the same as they have been since the Protestant Reformation. Nobody is behind the scenes pulling wires, Fred.

"It has nothing to do with it's founding beliefs anymore"

Have you gone through the Bible? Seen its founding beliefs? Have you read about the commandment to "Go ye into all the world"? Have you actually done research to support this claim?

", and the fact that it can make perfectly ordinary, smart people denounce rational scientific theories and facts is a testament to that."

There is nothing rational, scientific, factual, or for that matter theoretical about the alternatives to God. There are various "theories" out there which are completely unsupported, wild SPECULATION. Some believe that we are part of a computer simulation in another universe - in other words, they believe in a bunch of scientist gods, only they call it science. Others believe in a multiverse theory - that some being in another universe put together this universe - in other words, a god. Yet others have no explanation, yet still hold on to this tenuous framework of a not-halfway-reasonable beginning of an explanation for the creation of the universe. Yet dozens of otherwise intelligent people like OL and you still follow this ideal faithfully, calling yourselves rational and us deluded. WAKE UP! I have a great deal of respect for you, Fred, and I hope that you will think about what you write next time.

I had written a huge response to this, but it's pointless. We're not going to change each other's opinions.

I will say that I find it odd that you call yourself a Christian, and yet you obviously do not save judgment for the eternal beyond.

It's funny because that applies to you too. We all think we are right otherwise, as you mentioned, we would be lying to ourselves.

If I am against something, they are right if they can prove they are right, otherwise what they say can never be believed to be 100% correct (even if they are, we dont know that). That is how 'we' logical people work.

The very instant they prove they are right I will listen to them. I will put my hands in the air and say I am wrong. Science has proven most religious groundings to be false. Yet you still do not put your hands up and admit that your beliefs have no ground other than speculation and 'faith'.

For your knowledge, a book, what somebody says, what somebody dies for DOES IN NO WAY WHAT SO EVER account as proof of religion or anything for that matter. The only proof of God I can think of would be if he interacted with us in a testable fashion.

I've never once 'claimed' to be part of any group, I've not even said that I am an atheist or agnostic or anything like that. You have only speculated that.

I don't know why it is you think that atheists or agnostics or whatever are some kind of group or religion. Science is not a group. There is no book, no code of conduct or belief in any supernatural deity what so ever. Just to let you know as I've seen people who think that atheism is some kind of religion or belief system. It is simply a name for the belief that there is no God.

Why are you trying to save my skeptic hide when I clearly do not need or want you to? I don't care if in the end you were right, for it would be my fault. I believe you are wrong and that is that.

You can at least be greatful for all the scientific pioneers always striving to discover how our universe really works, yet you spit in the faces when they tell you that you're wrong, even when they prove it to you. Don't act like your not in the same boat as me, as you clearly are.

If science was abandoned for faith we would be still be living in caves. So be greatful for your electricity, your tv, your computer, your cars, your planes, your boats, your medicine - as it is mankind through science, not God, that has created those things for you.

I don't give a shit what religion it is, they're all false to me. They should not be running governments. Religion should not be used as an excuse.

Oh no! Schools teaching science!? What ever next. It is what it is and should not be mixed with anything else and claimed to be the same thing. The day science teaches religion it is no longer science. If you want biology and physics textbooks to teach religious creation then you must rewrite your bible to include evolution. You must teach evolution and the scientific natures of the universe in your religious schools and churches. Oh wait, you dont! How hypocritical. You want schools to teach religion yet you wont have religion teach science (specifically those theories that go against your belief).

Once again, you are speculating. Ignorance is bliss, eh? I'd expect no less of an American. Where I live, which is not America, I assure you I am in the MAJORITY. Here in ENGLAND religion is no where near as rampant as it is in your country. Thank God for that, eh?

What? This better not be aimed at me, as I have said many times to you that I don't care what she does. She can pray all she wants, I couldn't give a flying fuck.

Find some ground to stand on? That is hillarious coming from you, it truely is. The irony is killing me.

No, you are speculating again. You love doing that, don't you? I can't even see where you would get that idea from other than pulling it out of your arse. What are you even trying to say? I was making the point that I don't believe it is fair that people should be treated specially because of their religious agenda.

If I went out wearing a ski mask and a boiler suit everywhere, refusing to remove them, I would be stopped by the police and frowned upon. Yet they can wear their veils under the shield of religion, which are just as bad. I'm talking about in my country here, they can wear all the veils they want where they come from.

You keep applying this to yourself and your own religion dont you? I talk about all religions and all religious people. You explored and came to your conclusions, good for you. There is no problem with that. I am talking about people who do not question their faith. People who simply believe everything they are told and do not think otherwise - because there are people like that.

I can agree with that in some part.

Are you implying I do not question my beliefs or science? Ofcourse I do, as I said there are many things in science that are just plain wrong. Do you believe that anything in the Bible is wrong? No you don't, do you? You're not allowed to. Every single word is absolute truth. That, my friend, is where we differ. That is where you are weak.

You may not know that I was baptised and I am a 'Christian' in that respect. Even though I'm not in a strong religious environment in the slightest, when I was younger I used to think about there being a God, about going to hell or heaven. I used to be scared when ever I said something against the existance of God, incase something happened to me. It never did, I realised there was nothing to fear and saw that scientific explanations made much more sense to me, as you did with the bible. So please stop trying to 'save' me, for I do not want you to. I am not a bad person as you imply.

Oh, one last thing that made me giggle:

This is pointless.

A few (non-debate) points:

What you wrote and I found funny was this:

"A lazy mind is not nessecaraly a stupid one. It is one that does not always think for its self. It is one that had it's morals from just being human, instead of being told them. It is one that forms its own views and beliefs and does not always conform to what somebody or something else says." You're saying that a lazy mind is a free-thinking mind, in essence.

Do you believe in the scientist-gods of simulation theory, or in the god of another layer of the multiverse theory? Those are the only theories you've come up with to "explain" the universe, and both of them have an intelligent entity responsible for creating this universe.

"Oh, one last thing that made me giggle:" - What, exactly, made you giggle about that quote? The ministers of my church (churches; we move often) do live on what the congregation donates - what on earth do you expect?

"You keep applying this to yourself and your own religion dont you?" That's because I'm not a Muslim, or a New Age idiot. I'm a Christian, and Christianity is not the same as Islam. There are plenty of religions out there that support the ideas you have about religion - cults which feed their leaders' pocketbooks; religions of violence and war against nonbelievers … but Christianity is different. You complain that I group you in with atheists and any other major group - and then turn around and say that all religions are the same.

People have a right to beleive what they want to believe. You see omi, you are not on a path to riotousness but rather a path to violence, due to the fact that:

Which is what you're doing.

Just people, shut the fuck up about.. everything. You cna have your veiws but dont try to oppose them on us, because it wont work.

I personally agree with Optical Liam, because everything he said has scientific basis.

I don't see how, but take from it what you wish.

Ofcourse not. That would be silly.

Nobody ever claims they are anything more than theories or ideas. The simulation theory is one I paticularly like, as it grows ever more likely at the rate at which our own technology advances. I'm very sure there will be a point when we can simulate reality, ala The Matrix, in a computer. Moore's law supports this. This is what gives the theory it's weight, but it doesn't make anyone think it is absolute divine truth as you seem to think we believe.

This also shows me you seem not to fully read what I say, as when I first mentioned those theories I said they certainly do support the idea of an intelligent creator. I used the simulation theory to show you that I am open to the possibility of a creator, along with many scientists too. Oh and, there are no Gods or creators in the multiverse theory. Please read up on them before you try to talk about them.

It's just that you all give your donations to the church, while the pastors take from them and live off of them instead of getting a real job. It's like a charity taking some of the money as their wages. I just wouldn't like donating money to a cause for some scrounger to live off of it.

I didn't complain that you group me in with people. I complained that you said I 'claimed' to be part of a group, which I never have done. I've also never said that all religions are the same or even implied it. The only time I treat them as the same is in their validity.

Oh, going back to the scientific theories,

Wrong. Nobody believes in any 'Gods'. If we are in a simulation, that will mean we were created, but in no way are they considered by anyone as 'Gods' in the religious sense. You took this theory way, way too seriously. It's just a theory, an idea, a thought.

Completely and utterly wrong as I stated earlier. There are no creators or Gods in the multiverse theory. Please do some research instead of making things up. Nobody believes in such theories as if they know them to be correct like you think they do. There are many theories about things we do not know anything about, it therefore would be very silly for anybody to believe in any one of them without proof or at least evidence.