?

If you ask a question, and another poster responds to your question pointing out the flawed reasoning and fallacious assumptions you've made that render the point of your question moot, you might choose to try and rebut their points. When they respond to your rebuttal, demonstrating again the flaws in your reasoning, if you found you had nothing of substance to say in return, would you not -- as a reasonable and honest person -- either acknowledge that their concerns were reasonable, or simply disengage? If you chose to do otherwise -- say, to block that user and prevent them from responding when you again attempted to argue against their points -- would that not indicate a deep moral cowardice on your part? Would that not show that you were completely unable to conduct a reasonable discussion on a level playing field, and instead felt it necessary to abuse the website's user options in order to score a cheap, empty "victory"? What would it say about a person who did such a thing?

I'm interested in a wide range of opinions here, as there are strong moral thinkers in every quadrant of the religious and spiritual spectrum.

Many gay male couples don't enjoy or practice anal sex, and many heterosexual couples DO enjoy and practice anal sex. In fact, there are relatively few sexual practices that a same-sex couple (of either sex, because lesbians also exist) can engage in that a heterosexual couple cannot. So why, when discussing homosexuality, does the anti-gay crowd jump right to the buttsex as a justification for their hatred and disgust?

And to head off objections, yes, YOU may personally have a different reason, but whenever anyone here asks a question about homosexuality and why anyone should think it's wrong without recourse to religious commandments, multiple respondents reply that anal sex is unnatural/has medical risks/etc. I want to know why that's the first thing in their minds, so this question is directed primarily at them. Why the fixation?

Do you think that a woman should be forced by the government to remain pregnant against her will?

BQ1: How do you feel about the government making OTHER health care decisions for people?

BQ2: Should blood and organ donation be made mandatory in order to save lives? Why or why not?

Throughout my interactions with creationists, a common thread has emerged. Many creationists acknowledge that "micro"evolution occurs, with organisms adapting to their environments in response to selective pressures, but only within their own "kind" -- a term which is taken to describe a particular group or category of organisms. However, this term, "kind," is never further defined. So I'm asking creationists now to define it. What is a "kind"? Does it correspond to any taxonomic rank as used in biology (domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species)? Or is it some entirely different sort of classification -- and if so, on what is it based, and how is it determined? How can you tell when organisms are of the same "kind"? Please be as specific as possible.

I ran across an article today that brought up and dismantled several damaging myths that people believe about atheism. Which, if any, reflect assumptions that you have or had about atheism and atheists, and does the article help to explain why they aren't true? Here's the link:

http://www.alternet.org/story/152395/10_myths_many...

Since coming to Y!A, I've run into an attitude I've never encountered before, and it confuses me. There seem to be a lot of agnostics here who think that agnosticism is somehow a more moderate, more rational "third path" between religious belief and atheism, and that (unlike either believers or atheists) they're taking "the only intellectually honest position." (I've seen someone on here use those exact words.)

Where does this notion that agnosticism is somehow mutually-exclusive with either religious belief or atheism? Being agnostic doesn't mean "I don't know if there's a god, so I have no opinion" (though some people use it that way). Agnosticism is the philosophical position that the certain truth of whether or not a God or gods exist is unknown or unknowable. Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief in gods, or a lack thereof. Knowledge and belief are separate questions, and agnosticism addresses the question of knowledge. A person can be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist.

So my question is this: why have I seen so many agnostics on this board say that their position is superior or "more intellectually honest" than that of the atheist (or the believer)? Is it a misunderstanding of what agnosticism is -- or a misunderstanding of what atheism is? Because atheism isn't the belief that no gods exist. It's the *lack* of belief that any gods *do* exist -- which is different. If you cannot truthfully state, "I believe that a God or gods exist," then you are (by definition) an atheist, even if you don't identify as such. How is that a "less intellectually honest" position than agnosticism? Where does this idea come from? I've never encountered it on any other religion or atheism message boards or discussion groups -- so I know it's not all agnostics who say this. Just some of the ones here. Why?

This is a phenomenon I've run into frequently in the past few years, and quite frankly it confuses the heck out of me, so I'm going to see if someone can explain it to me adequately.

Words have meaning. Speakers of a given language learn and understand words to have specific meaning, and that understanding is shared among speakers of that language, so that communication can take place. The word "religion" has a specific meaning. Dictionary.com gives us this definition:

"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

Using this definition, Christianity is a religion. Yet, I see some Christians objecting to the application of the word, saying that their beliefs are not a religion, but rather "a relationship" or "God's truth" or "following the Bible." The distinction I've seen some of these Christians try to draw is that "religion" is a manmade phenomenon, requiring specific acts and rituals. But that's not in the definition of the word "religion." I don't understand why these Christians are so keen on redefining the word "religion" in order to try to exclude their beliefs from it. What made it a bad word in their minds?

If you can show me a Christian who doesn't believe in a creator God that exists outside and is not bound by natural laws, or doesn't believe that this God has handed down certain moral mandates and prohibitions, or doesn't participate in devotional observances like prayer, church services, or Bible readings, then you will successfully have shown me someonen who does not belong to a religion. However, you will also have produced someone that most Christians will say is not a Christian.

Why is "religion" such an undesirable thing in the minds of some Christians, and why do they feel the need to redefine the word "religion" in order to exclude their beliefs? Because it *is* a redefinition; they're using the word in a way that contradicts the way the vast majority of English speakers understand the word. And I don't understand why.

On August 1 in Des Moines, Iowa, the Des Moines Area Regional Transit (DART) bus line began displaying an ad purchased by the Iowa Atheist and Free Thinkers Group on the side of their buses. The ad read, "Don't believe in God? You are not alone." Following a deluge of phone calls and complaints about the ad, DART pulled it from their buses three days later.

The entire story can be found here: http://www.kcci.com/news/20298174/detail.html

My question is this: do any of you actually find this advertisement offensive? Would you have complained? Bear in mind, DART has in the past run ads for Christian organizations. I'm less interested in discussing what DART should or should not have done (though as I understand it, they operate under government funding, and therefore government anti-discrimination policies apply to them), but instead I'm interested in the actions of the religious commuters. Do you think they were right in complaining about another view being represented in this ad? Was it actually offensive in any way?