grr

Opponents of the "Ground Zero Mosque" have clearly taken the actions of a few extremists to be indicative of all of the followers of Islam. Some people, though, might find it just as easy to take these actions as indicative of religious people in general. I mean, if we're gonna lump a whole bunch of people together, why stop at Islam? Isn't belief in an invisible sky god and submission to written dogma the same no matter which text we're buying into? Why is building a mosque more offensive?

Originally, there was no delineation between science and religion. There was just us humans trying to figure out how the universe works. As our knowledge and technology have grown, so too has our ability to test our theories.

Consider the sun. At one point, someone said it was carried across the sky in a flaming chariot. Unfortunately, that didn't stand up to rigorous examination. The heliocentric planetary system did. We call the first idea religion, and the second science, but they were both attempts to explain the same thing. Science is just called science because it works.

My point is that so many people seem to think that there are things that science can explain and things it cannot, and those things can only be explained by religion. In light of the number of times these claims have been made and were later proven wrong, isn't this just another example of the "god of the gaps"? So my question is: what do you think science can NOT explain, and why do you think this?

Christians repeatedly assure me that everyone will be "perfect" in heaven, and in light of a friend of mine having his foot amputated recently, I'm curious what this means. If it means his foot will grow back, does this mean that there is a standard of perfection that everyone will measured by? Does this mean that short people will grow to a "normal" height? If blind people will be able to see, what will their vision be? Are we talking 20/20, something close to it, or something much better? I realize that this is a very narrow view of heaven, but since it seems to be the version that I'm getting from so many believers, I want a specific answer.

The Bible clearly says not to eat shrimp: "Of all the creatures living in the water, you may eat any that has fins and scales. But anything that does not have fins and scales you may not eat; for you it is unclean. "--Deuteronomy 14:9-10

I know a whole bunch of Christians who eat shrimp, though, and they say it's because they aren't bound by Judaic Law, but Jesus seemed to think otherwise when he said: "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."--Matthew 5:18

So if Jesus said that the law was still in effect, and the law says not to eat shrimp, why do so many Christians think it's okay?

Mark 10:49-52

Jesus stopped and said, "Call him." So they called to the blind man, "Cheer up! On your feet! He's calling you." Throwing his cloak aside, he jumped to his feet and came to Jesus.

"What do you want me to do for you?" Jesus asked him.

The blind man said, "Rabbi, I want to see."

"Go," said Jesus, "your faith has healed you." Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus along the road.

Isn't this questioning the beggar?

First off, I'm not claiming that there is proof, or even that such a thing can be proved. I see no way such a thing could be empirically proved. But, as one whose opinion of life after death lies somewhere between skeptical and incredulous, I often hear responses which go something like, "So you think that when you die that's just the end of it. Seems like a terrible way to live." My question is simply, if god had told you, in a way you knew was absolutely true, that when you die it's all over, end of story, no heaven or hell, would you think that this was a terrible way to live? Again, I'm not even claiming that this is the case. I'm simply curious if you would think that 50 to 100 years in this universe without an afterparty was a ripoff, or would you just be grateful for the time you have and get on with your life.

Deuteronomy 22:13-21 says that if a woman cannot prove that she was a virgin on her wedding night, her husband and the town elders must take her to her father's doorstep and throw rocks at her until she dies. Given that most girls were married off at about thirteen at the time this book was written, and that these girls weren't allowed to travel in public without a male relative as an escort, does it really seem likely that many of the girls this law would apply to had any control over their non-virginal state? It seems to me that most of these girls would have been victims of rape and probably incest, and the person who should be stoned to death would be their father, uncle, or brother, yet no mention is made of punishing the father who (at the very least) allowed this to happen. So I have to wonder what would prompt an omniscient, loving creator to institute such a draconian policy, which condemns rape victims to an agonizing death but exempts the actual perpetrators of the crime. Any thoughts?

No, it's not "Mirrors" with Kiefer Sutherland. I saw it last year on TV, but I can't remember what network. It was about a woman who discovers that someone seems to be stealing her identity with her friends' and family's complicity. Seems she has a double and mirrors are implicated. There's also situs inversus (a medical disorder where the internal organs are in reversed position) involved. I've done every internet search I can think of but no luck. Anybody else see this movie, or am I crazier than I thought?

I stopped coming around here about a year ago, since it seemed like this was just a forum for non-constructive arguing and slagging other people's beliefs. Questions that asked for a genuine opinion were usually ignored, while inflammatory "You're stupid if you believe..." questions got tons of responses. While I must admit that I can't resist the occasional potshot, I and others tried to ask some questions that might open up a real dialog, only to be met with a frightening combination of apathy and vitriol.

I popped by here on a whim today, and I noticed that the contributors seem much more civil and respectful than in the past. My question to the regulars: is it just the holiday season (whichever you may celebrate), did I just get lucky and pick a good day, or have people in this forum gotten nicer lately?

I know that many Christians are upset by the phrase "Happy Holidays." I don't celebrate Christmas, but I do celebrate the Solstice. Is it okay to wish happiness based on my own beliefs and feelings about this time of the year, or should we ditch it completely and limit ourselves to "Have a nice day"?

I was once a devout Christian. I prayed for Jesus to come into my heart and accepted him as my lord and savior. I studied the Bible every single day. I prayed constantly. I felt the presence of the Holy Spirit, and tried desperately to share my faith with those around me. I cried myself to sleep every night thinking of the people who were going to burn in hell for all eternity, and I prayed for them and witnessed to them at every opportunity. In other words, I wasn't just a Christian because it was the thing to do--I genuinely BELIEVED.

Later I realized that I couldn't morally be a part of such a religion, and that I didn't believe in the whole thing anyways, since it seemed to be mostly a mishmash of recycled myths from other Mediterranean religions.

But I keep hearing about how once someone is saved, they're saved forever, and the whole Pascal's Wager thing has me scared in a different way. What if I AM wrong? The most horrible fate I can imagine is to spend eternity in the company of the creature the Bible calls God, so would I really be forced to go to heaven? Is there any way to get unsaved? I've said some really nasty things about the Holy Spirit just to hedge my bets, but how can I be sure I'm not still going to heaven?

Most of the people in the West are, while most people in the Middle East are not. Would you be one of the few who grew up being told that Islam was true, but rejected it for Christianity, or would you be one of the vast majority who believed what they were taught as a child? Probability says that you wouldn't, but do you think that you would beat the odds? If not, are you okay with knowing that your salvation is largely a result of luck and geography?

I constantly read posts from people saying that they *know* something is true because they have *faith* in it. Millions of Christians know that Christianity is true because they have faith in the Bible, while millions of Muslims know that Islam is true because they have faith in the Koran, etc.

Having once been devoutly religious, I know first-hand the comforting feeling that comes with faith, but I fail to see how members of one religion can claim that their faith in their religion is in any way different than someone else's faith in a conflicting belief.

Christians now have faith in a very different God than Christians of several hundred years ago, which is why I haven't been dragged from my home and burned to death for being an outspoken atheist yet. Most Christians today will tell you that this isn't righteous behavior, yet Christians with the same faith would have been perfectly fine with jeering as I burned not too long ago. Most of these people were born in predominately Christian countries to Christian families, so I have to wonder how many of them would be Christians had they been born in Saudi Arabia or Iran.

So my very roundabout question is, why does your faith matter? I'm not even claiming it doesn't, but how do you distinguish your faith in a loving god from a god who wants you blow yourself up or kill unbelievers? Terrorists are mostly very devout and incredibly faithful. So is it really faith that defines your morality and relationship with the divine, or is just good judgment and compassion? Essentially, as a moral atheist, I don't see how faith is the great thing it's made out to be, and I'm wondering if someone can enlighten me on the subject.

And please, I'm not looking to start a flame war, so religious people who want to tell me I'm going to hell or atheists who want to expound on the stupidity of religion need not bother. I'm asking a legitimate question.

Is there a right answer to this question? ;)

Okay, one narrow sense of normal. I keep seeing posts saying that homosexuality isn't normal, which is why you don't see animals doing it. When it's pointed out that actually a whole lot of the animal kingdom has a whole lot of gay sex, including some of our closest relatives, like bonobos and baboons, they say that just because animals do it doesn't make it right because we're morally superior to animals.

Which argument is it going to be? Can we maybe put it to a vote?

1. If it isn't normal, animals won't do it.

2. Just because animals do it doesn't make it normal.

3. This is a stupid analogy and we should avoid both versions at all costs.

Which one should we use?

Here's a loving Christian question:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=200904...

I'm concerned about the example that Christians set for the children, what with the blood sacrifice, ritual cannibalism, and their history of torturing and burning people. I'm afraid the kids will see it and think that guilt and condemnation is a good way to live. (Yes, I'm being sarcastic here and wouldn't want to prevent somebody moving into my neighborhood, but is this other guy for real?)

Suggested category: Home & Garden > Garden & Landscape

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lh0ZB9OD_fg&feature...

I tend to think so. (Mark 2:15-17, Luke 23:40-43, John 8:7-11, John 9, Luke 14:1-6, Mark 2:23-27, Matthew 12:9-13) Would he want millions of people to suffer and die to uphold the letter of the law?

To you the cross is a religious symbol, but to those who don't share your beliefs, a cross is a device used to torture someone to death. I'm not suggesting that you should be forced to take all of your crosses down, so don't bother answering like I am, but I am curious how you would feel if a religious group that worshiped Louis XVI put a giant guillotine in front of their church where your children would have to see it every day. Should that be allowed? If you don't think so, how is that different than making non-Christians and their children look at a cross?

At least Christmas was renamed when it was appropriated. Easter is still named after a pagan fertility goddess! (And how many Christians who celebrate Easter have asked why atheists celebrate Christmas?)

Since "panino" means bread or sandwich, and "panini" is the plural form, what are "paninis?" Are they anything like "sandwicheses?"