Religion Mandating Life

quote:

---

Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006:
Should Religion[I mean all applications of this word] be granted the authority or exclusive mandate ot define morality, purpose, the
meaning of life, or other questions such as these,

​

I got this question or idea of my NOMA thread. Q. stated it in a reply. It is an interesting question to consider, and I wanted to see what you guys thought about it.

​

---

No. The Founding Fathers of the USA had set it up so that this wouldn't be the case, even though there are those now who want to subvert this and impose their religious beliefs on all through the power of law.

quote:

---

Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006:
I wonder then, why we who are Americans, who are very patriotic after 9/11/01, do not remember the fact which you posted.

​

I have heard nothing short of the great way this country was founded and also the constitutioin [sorry mispelled] which is the backbone to our survival. Why do the religion activists continually forget that there is "separation of church and state"? Surely with everything going on as it is today, they would be continually reminded of this priniciple.

​

I do not understand how anyone could forget this basic principle, it is like forgetting 2 + 2 + 4.

​

---

It is because they mistakenly believe that separation of Church and State is only one way. That the State stay out of the way of Church. But what they don't (won't) see that if they are allowed to influence the State than it is the same as the State interfering in the beliefs of others. They won't see this contradiction, but what can one expect since they also ignore all of the contradictions in their belief system as a whole as a rule. [This message has been edited by nos482, 09-20-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad McFall:
If I connect the word dots, words: "granted" and "appeal" that begin this thread then what I READ is that $$ in question can not be afforded to faith based groups of any stripe and these assocations of inviduals can only have legal recourse throughout the court system. This is not fair even if my reading is also not fair. I would say then that even to try this as an academic double jeoporday class action is acitivity no person can loom even if it was possible to CONTINUOUSLY use both arms and legs which was once tried in GErmany etc.

​

I know I am harsh with only these words but I really would like to get to the threads you all use more regularly.

---

I get the impression that you are actually talking to yourself from most of your replies that I have read.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-20-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
dear Anne,

​

If such believe system are founded on "survival of the fittest" we shouldn't allow it. It brings war.

​

If such believe systems are based on "equality, mutual respect and love" we should allow it. It brings peace.

​

best wishes,
peter

---

Peace? You don't know your history. There have been more wars "inspired" by religion than any other cause.The current so-called "war" on terrorism is really about religion as well. It was mainly the blashpemy of having infidels in the holy land that inspired them to try to drive you out.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Nos,

​

You say:
Peace? You don't know your history. There have been more wars "inspired" by religion than any other cause.

​

Wars are always inspired "to get control over power". Relegion is a good excuse. The european wars in the middle ages were fought by the established powers "bishops and kings" to control. Usually they were family relatives (brothers, nephews). It had nothing to do with religion. The relious wars in Northern Europe were fought to get rid of the catholic doctrines, that kept the people from the word (as Luther had discovered).

​

The current so-called "war" on terrorism is really about religion as well. It was mainly the blashpemy of having infidels in the holy land that inspired them to try to drive you out.

​

No, it is on economics (power). Relegion gets te blame.

​

Think free.

​

Peter

​

---

Excuse or not, it still got the people to fight. "For God and country!!" "God Bless America!" "One Nation Under God!", etc.Religion was mostly madeup to gain control and power and to exploit other's needs for an answer to this end. It has always been about power. Preaching love and forgiveness is just the bait on the hook. It helps so much when the suckers actually believe it. You can convinces some to even crash planes into buildings.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-27-2002]

Originally posted by peter borger:What god? The god of money?The god your conditioning tells you to worship.Religion has been and still is abused by the men in power.That is why they invented it. It is a tool and always has been.Maybe it got the illiterate to fight, the ones who are kept dumb. Not the people who read the word.Please, an illiterate wouldn't have been able to qualify to fly an airplane. The so-called word is taken from fairy tales, and added a little history. Only the gullible would take it for anything else. Apparently normal and intelligent people can fall for this sort of thing as well, it is called compartmentalization.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-27-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006:
Thanks for posting. Agrees with this. This is what I was driving to in the previous post.

​

---

Yes, even though this is the truth they still work to deny it, because they don't want to admit that they've been gullible enough to be so willingly used.

quote:

---

Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006:
I believe that most religions are simply ways for other human beings to control other human beings. That would explain the wars and the religious persecutions going on.

​

I say religion is bunk, all it does is divide, it does not unite which is one of its purposes. If it supposed to bring one closer to the Deity, I do not see how, for what I do see, makes me want to get the heck away from any type of religion very quickly.

​

Do not want to have anything to do with blind faith.

​

---

Amen to that, Sister. Take the current war for example. It seems that the one's who want to fight a war and kill the enemy are Christians and many of those who don't are not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006:
nos482,

​

And they claim that they are logical. I do not see how. How in the world can they lie to themselves? I proud to be an atheist.

​

---

Some would rather believe in a popular myth than in an unpopular truth.

quote:

---

Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006:
Nos482,

​

I agree. How else can we expound on this topic? I do not know the proper questions, but I am interested in what others think or how to continue this topic at a deeper level.

​

Creationists puzzle me. In regards to the last post, they sure do violate the very nature of science, the scientific method. How sad. They claim to know science, yet they do not adhere to its very nature. Makes their side look pathetic.

​

What do you think?

​

---

Actually, what they believe in is not science at all, but pseudo-science. In pseudo-science if the evidence doesn't match the theory than the evidence is wrong and thrown out and the theory kept because belief and faith are more important than facts to them.The scarely thing is that they want to have their pseudo-science taught in public schools as real science "just to be fair". Next thing you know they will be teaching astrology, alchemy, flat Earth geology, and an Earth centred solar system "just to be fair". As I've said before science education in the USA is a joke and teaching creationism will make it a total laughing stock.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-30-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:

​

That's too bad Anne because blind faith is what you are running on. Tell me, what proof have you there is no God?

---

What real proof do you have that does?I think that she is just as wrong as you are, but atheists aren't the ones who are trying to impose their belief on all through the power of law. (Well atheists can't since they don't have a cohesive belief system like theists do.)

Originally posted by gene90:Been through this a million times already.And a million times you failed to give a good answer. That's great, we actually agree on something. I see atheists as being at about the same level as theists as far as faith goes.It is more a lack of evidence for them than faith.I'm sure there are ultraconservatives out there that would disagree with you.Of course they see that preventing them from imposing their beliefs on all by rule of law as atheists imposing their non-belief on all. The thing is that atheists care more for your right to believe freely than most theists care about their right to not believe. The only good way to do this is the keep separation of Church and State completely separate.Actually atheists can do this and have done this before. Look at what happened to Albania when the commies took over. Look at China today. The fact is atheism is a religious perspective (I hesitate to call it a religion since there is no supernatural aspect) and can become a state-backed intrusion upon human rights every bit as easily as any theistic religion can. In these cases it has more to do with getting rid of the competition for control than in any real belief, or nonbelief. Also, in China their religions are not exactly theistic in nature.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-01-2002]