Nic4 [AM]

On the one hand, democracy would work fine. We would have equal rights and reproductive rights, Fireball would be both happy and gone. Large sections of the South would suddenly revert to uninhabited wasteland.

On the other hand...unless we could find a convincing explanation centered around group hysteria and/or a giant hoax, it would be somewhat embarrassing.

Still, at least we'd get a few months of drunken fornicating in.

Please, take all the time and space you need. Oh, but there is a right answer and wrong answer here.

Is it flammable?

And why has it been 12 minutes now, when she promised 5? Has she been abducted by the Gay-Atheist-Mafia in order to silence her? Should we call the authorities?

And more important, who wants to bet that she just gives us a link to the Bible?

Before you assume that's some sort of bizarre innuendo, I'm referring to the comparatively low proportion of non-supernatural-entity-belief-endowed individuals in the USA, in comparison to here in Europe.

From experience, a good chunk of people here are at most agnostic or apathetic. The religious tend to be older people and first- or second-generation immigrants from more entity-fearing regions. Fundamentalist Christians are treated with the sort of vaguely amused and polite tolerance - with a side serving of ambiguous concern - with which you might greet a Scientologist.

How does life in the minority treat you? Do you worry about the religious morality currently buffeting politics? Or do you feel protected by the degree of religious tolerance? Just curious.

An answer to the question

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsovU...

"Most of the atheists on this site state it is a fact that God does not exist although they have not one bit of evidence for their statement of faith."

You cannot "disprove" atheism; to make its position more or less untenable, however, is theoretically very simple.

All you have to do is prove that your God/gods exist(s), or prove that it is the most probable circumstance.

Now, you're prepared to stake your life, your culture, your morality, and other people's rights on the premise that God exists. You must be very, very sure about this. And you must have developed this certainty somehow. What keeps you from unleashing this mind-blowing well-supported theory? Why do you quote scripture (circular reasoning) when you must have some sort of rationale for your beliefs?

...Or don't you? Is your faith only justified by a warm fuzzy feeling inside and the fact that others share your warm fuzzy feeling? Would you like other people to use this sort of basis for their own moral thinking? Feel free to set me straight.

If you believe it isn't, perhaps you could explain why you don't believe in human rights.

For example, I believe that the following articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are breached by commonly held tenets of Abrahamic religions.

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

* Threatening Hell implies that no one holds this right.

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

* The wording of this article clearly implies that marriage between men or between women is entitled to full protection.

Article 26.

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups

* Involuntary restrictions, such as those which are anti-choice or against pre-marital sex, such not be taught in schools - children should be taught *about* them.

Article 27.

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

* Women often do not have the right to participate in religious life on the same level as men. Also, requiring followers to deny science and inhibits it advancement by promoting YEC and impeding stem cell research breaches this right.

I've heard a lot of derisive comments about science, mocking the very idea that one could be genetically related to a monkey.

Even if you don't believe it - and, for the record, that's perverse - why do you perceive it as an insult or a threat??

If not, should we be scared?

Atheists/agnostics/deists/other, help them out.

I know it may be difficult not to treat it as such when it stands in direct opposition to your religious beliefs, but it is not, in fact, a religion. It isn't much of a "belief system", either, seeing as its central tenet is rational process.

As a side-issue, I see this in the use of the term "evolutionism", coined only to describe a willingness to accept prevailing scientific opinion. Simply because it opposes Creationism, this doesn't make it a "belief" or oblige it to compete in the same frame of reference.

I'm curious as to how you approach atheism, though. Do you treat it as a religious belief, and why?

I can understand, if not appreciate, why someone who created the Universe might have some sort of moral code they wanted people to live by, and some sort of standard for the people they accepted into their company.

What I cannot come to terms with is what his motivation could possibly be for demanding that you believe in him specifically, worship him specifically, and pray to him specifically.

What purpose does it serve, if all other virtues can held by atheists or devotees of other religions?

Why is belief in God a moral virtue in itself?

I hope that there might be something in answering this question to shed some light on how to formulate persuasive arguments with theists. (Maybe not).

Be fair - you may never have believed in God, but there was a time when you didn't know how to spell Atheist, and I'm just interested in when you took it up. Since the end of this story involves turning up to the vanguard of R&S, mincing unwary passers-by who want to know if their red panties are going to get them a one-way pass to Hell.

Essentially - are God's commands "right" and "just" simply because they were issued by God, or does God refer to some sort of objective justice and only pronounce ethical practices and values when they correspond?

If you choose Divine Command Theory, that it is moral because it is commanded by God (cf. Abraham and Isaac) - you face the further question, would the slaughter of newborn babies be "good" if it was commanded by God? If so, you open theism open to potential dystheism.

If God commands it because it is "good" - how is this "good" determined?

(This is the Euthyphro dilemma, scourge of Divine Command Theory.)

Just out of curiosity, to see what sort of range your average sample of people gives up.

Also, if it's not too personal, mention your actual frequency and/or whether or not you're in a long-term relationship.

If so, why?

I ask since I've been subjected to many and various unprovoked assumptions and inquiries as to whether I am or feel capable of being faithful to my heterosexual partner, with no more basis than the fact that I potentially find women attractive.

I have personally never been unfaithful to a partner of either gender.

If you don't believe, on grounds of religious morality, that gay couples should be allowed to adopt - do I not morally qualify either?

If not, why not?

If so, how about a transgendered female-to-male and a female?

Marriage is a secular, legal institution. Atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Norse Pagans, Satanists, Agnostics - we all do. It has been accepted that there are no grounds to challenge this.

These marriages have nothing in common with the traditional Christian ideal, with the exception that they are between a man and a woman. Most, clearly, are sexually monogamous - but it is by no means necessary. "Adultery" is no longer on the books of most Western countries, and most states (where it is no longer prosecuted, even if it has remained a statute).

Why should any non-Christian - or, if you prefer, non-religious person - be required to honour this last remaining vestige of religious morality?

At the last point in my life that I was a theist, around the age of twelve, I still laughed to myself at the concept that anyone could possibly come to the logical conclusion that the world is 6000 years old.

Even disregarding carbon dating and the fossil record, it is entirely possible to trace back human civilisation in the near east to 7000BCE - 5900 (Ubaid period) at a more cautious, conservative approach to determining the earliest established stage in the timeline.

By 4000BCE we have base-60 mathematics, astronomy, civil law and complex hydrology. There are plenty of artefacts clearly pre-dating these periods.

This is not research done in the name of combatting creationism; this is research done in the process of obtaining my degree in Early Civilisations of the Near East at Cambridge. Just in case you mind find it relevant to a literal interpretation - there is also no evidence of a global flood, and later - in Egypt - no conclusive evidence that slavery was practiced. I have personally studied the soil samples and read the original texts.

With extensive evidence of human civilisation far pre-dating 4000BC - why even argue about evolution? Why even engage in the rest of the discussion on scientific method? ... Any takers?

Clearly there is plenty of support for Obama here in Europe, and rightly so. US foreign policy is such that, however undesirable it may be, the selection of the US President has had dire consequences for the rest of us. I have lived and breathed election coverage for months, culminating in a very tense election night, and I was very keen for Obama to win.

Still, I don't imagine I would feel much enthusiasm for Obama's ideology to be implemented in any of the countries I have lived in here in Europe. I would still greatly admire and respect him as an intelligent, grounded, disciplined individual with sound judgement and an enviable personal life.

However, whilst he might be progressive for the US, but he would be a great step back for social democracy in Europe. The only "values" appeal a politician should make should be to secular ideas on morality and, very occasionally, to culture. Universal healthcare and reproductive rights have been part of legislation for decades. "Liberalism" is not a dirty word, and individuals cannot purchase firearms for "personal defence". Several countries have gender-neutral marriage, or at the very least registered partnerships. Progressive taxation works fine here. Diplomacy is still the cornerstone of our foreign policy, rather than overblown defence spending.

Given that, do you agree? Or do you think that, in a more liberal climate, a man like Obama might have been even more progressive?

Clearly McCain and Obama are both mainstream Christians, who believe in God and attend church with their families.

As Colin Powell points to in his endorsement speech, though - is there any particular reason why you wouldn't consider a Muslim or an atheist, perhaps someone who'd done several tours of duty for his country and held conservative beliefs, for President?

Ideology aside, I'm very curious as to what Americans of any political affiliation want on the resume of their ideal candidate.

I've followed the election very closely, but I'm a UK citizen so I don't have an agenda to grind. We have Gordon Brown, who is dissatisfactory on some levels but, as an economist, has handled the economic crisis very well for the UK so far. France has Sarkozy, who is blisteringly intelligent.

It would seem to me that, in principle, your major party candidates are both very well placed. One has a very respectable military career and the benefit of years in Washington, the other is a constitutional scholar with a voting history that reflects excellent personal judgement.

What, exactly, would be on your ideal candidate's resume?