SageAgainstTheMachine

Well in 1802, Jefferson described the first amendment as a wall of separation between church and state, and the Supreme Court has used the quotation often in their proceedings. Even if it is not the official law of the land, we do have separation of church and state in the sense that our laws are not affected by any specific religious doctrine. In most of the Muslim world, laws are considered valid for no other reason than their inclusion in the Ku'ran. It is quite different here.

While that is probably true, there is nothing to suggest that Jesus, Mohammad or Vishnu have any more control over your life than Zeus, Artemis, Athena, and the rest of the gang. And yes there have been holy wars regarding our modern religions, but if you think there haven't been wars fough over the more archaic religions as well, then you are wrong. But alas, what you said at the end there is most definitely true. We are probably more insignficant than we could ever know. We will all have to wait until death to get the answers to our questions, if we ever do get the answers. Personally, I don't see a pragmatic reason to believe in an after-life, but here's to hoping I'm wrong! After all, I'm just as curious as the next guy.

Which is largely similar to the Old Testament of the Bible, no? It's certainly not a "modern" document by any stretch, and a large reason that the Middle East has failed to become modern itself is that it bases its laws and regulations on its religion. Thankfully, we have separation of church and state here in America. And every archaic text is written in the most obnoxious way, there was no political correctness back then. Of course, certain Suras deal with nothing but guidelines, but there is definitely a code for morality in there.

Well my parents are both atheists, so it's more a part of my identity than most people. I was always the only kid in my class who never got Christmas presents/easter baskets and stuff. I guess that's where the certain amount of pride comes from, pride for my background. And I don't think atheist means that I "don't believe in anything". I believe that something, at some point, created the Earth and the Universe. I believe that we, as humans, are incapable of understanding whatever that force was and are foolish for trying. But for those who believe there is a "god" watching over us at all times, those are the people I disagree with. See, I think that it is foolish to believe that there is a god out there who is somehow invested in our well being. I believe that god is a creation of man and not the other way around. There was a time on Earth before humans existed, and there will be a time when humans are gone. And yet most world religions insist that god created humans in his image. And I do agree with you that certain portions of the Bible have a very solid moral backing. But I believe that's true of most religious texts. I've read most of the Bible, most of the Ku'ran, among other readings. If you subtract the specific beliefs about differing gods, prophets, etc. it all boils down to the same message of being kind to your fellow man. I guess what really gets to me is how people use their faith to justify believing in something which they have absolutely no physical evidence for. Fact is, nobody knows if there is a god, or (if there is) what god's nature is. In fact, I suppose my theological beliefs are more in according with agnosticism. Because for me to assert that there is, without a doubt, no god is just as bad as the people who believe for no other reason than blind faith. But, yes, I am proud that I haven't bought into any of the religions that most people practice. I tend to think that 2,000 years from now, Christianity and Islam and Judaism and Hinduism will all be looked upon as nothing more than mythologies. After all, nobody prays to Zeus anymore. So I'm more inclined to marry an agnostic woman (or at least find one who isn't interested in being married in a church) and try my best to let my children know that having no religion is just as viable an option as believing in something.

Nope, not yet. Gonna watch online tomorrow. Any good?

And in the words of Kevin Kline from A Fish Called Wanda...Don't call me stupid. Or dumb, or dense, or moron, or retard (you use that one a lot and it offends me because I have a disabled brother). In fact, you tend to call a lot of people stupid on these boards. That, to me, doesn't say too much about your own intelligence.

Just please tell me what "flew over my head". I'm genuinely curious.

Most didn't want him to fail. That would mean that they weren't wanting what was best for the country. They simply thought he was doing a piss poor job. There's a difference.

By the way, if the thing that "flew over my head" is my asking if Reid and Murtha were on this board, I wasn't being serious. I made a comment on the conservatives on this board, and Joe6 rebutted it by referring to the comments Reid and Murtha. I'm not that dumb.

What, pray tell, flew over my head? And I love how you use the word atheist as if it's supposed to be some sort of biting insult. I'm proud of it, you saying that is not a slap in the face.

Ok maybe some people did want Bush to fail. I wasn't one of them. But to all those who so much as questioned Bush, many Republicans retorted with "You have to respect the decisions of the President and show your support for them, or else you are Unamerican." Will those Republicans prove themselves hypocrites and not support Obama?

Are Reid and Murtha on this board? And no, most liberals did not want us to fail in Iraq. We wanted a quick withdrawal because we felt it was an unjust war to begin with.

So in 4 years' time, if Obama has proven himself to not be a socialist, and we not living under a socialist regime, will you admit that you were wrong? Let's say hypothetically that things are better in 4 years. The stock market is way up. There is peace in Iraq and our troops have been withdrawn. The US dollar is again strong against other currencies. There is more money in your pocket. America's education system is better. The poverty rate is lower. If things are like that, will you admit you were wrong and re-elect Obama?

I wasn't really talking about you, as you usually post intelligently. I was talking about the types that are already tearing Obama apart for offering Chief of Staff to Emmanuel and the "Obama is a lying communist fraud" types. They seem to be chomping at the bid to criticize our President-elect and I get the feeling that (even if its on a subconscious level) they want to see him fail.

Is it? I was raised atheist, I always thought it was Sunday. Well, just change my post to say that those who interpret the Bible literally can't watch college football.

Very well said. I get the feeling that many Republicans on this board are actually hoping bad things happen to America so that they can say "I told you so." At least, that's how they're acting right now. Glad to see you aren't one of them.

Anybody who interprets the Bible literally isn't allowed to watch the Bills because the Bible says that the sabbath is to be reserved exclusively for activities related to the praise of their god. Also, there's a bunch of stuff in Leviticus about slaughtering livestock as sacrifice to god on a weekly basis, and other crazy sh*t.

So it sounds to me that your objection to the propostion of teaching about gay marriage in school is that an elementary level child is incapable of understanding the connotations of the word "gay". That's fair. So I think the answer to that would be to have schools not traverse into the sexual side of things, and stick to defining marriage as a union of two people in love. A 5 year old child might not understand a man being sexually attracted to another man, because that child probably hasn't been taught about sex yet, but I'm sure he could understand gay marriage in the sense that men fall in love with men and women fall in love with women. Your 5 year old understands that there is a bond between you and your wife, so don't you suppose he could understand gay marriage too? Now, I don't have a child, so I'm most likely missing something here, but it seems that you could teach kids about gay marriage and avoid the sexual aspect of it. In doing so, I think the youngest generation might grow up more tolerant.

Ok provide evidence for that last statement, and it had better be good. And what exactly is this "natural law" and how does homosexuality impede it?

Why would we want one of the worst cornerbacks in the NFL? He couldn't even hack it on one of the worst teams in the NFL, why would a playoff contender like the Bills even consider touching him?

What exactly are the connotations of "taught about gay marriage"? Do you mean, like, in history class? Legalized gay marriage would be a big moment in American history, what would be your problem with children learning about it?

Ok, so they are to blame too then. If they don't realize that homosexuals are suffering through the same things they suffered through, it's their own fault.

This is why I'm glad Obama won by 6 million votes and about 200 electoral votes. Nobody can cry foul on this whole ACORN thing.

I just can't wait until the day that those who are bigoted against gays are looked upon in the same negative light as those who are bigoted against blacks and women. People seem to think it's ok to discriminate against homosexuals and society has not done a good enough job of telling them they are wrong. Back in the 60's, it was the same with black people. It was ok to be a bigot. It was just their opinion. Today, it is not tolerated. Perhaps 30, maybe 40 years from today, it will be the same story with homosexuals. Hey, maybe in a few decades we will see our first openly gay President. Now that would be a big moment.

I'm not going to fight you. But I do have one question. Hypothetically, if Obama does a good job as President and the country is in a better place in 4 years, will you admit you were wrong and vote to re-elect him, or keep your head buried in the sand?