sure, pinpointing whether value of human life stems from 'religion'

or if religion is one of MANY things that stem from the value of human life,,,

for instance



pinpointing whether the idea of a man and woman in marriage stems from 'religion' specifically, or if religion stemmed for a congregation of writers who already HAD that idea of marriage,,,,


,,just for a couple of examples,,

pinpointing whether value of human life stems from 'religion'
or if religion is one of MANY things that stem from the value of human life,,,

for instance
pinpointing whether the idea of a man and woman in marriage stems from 'religion' specifically, or if religion stemmed for a congregation of writers who already HAD that idea of marriage,,,,

yes, and pinpointing what 'system' owns any particular moral,,,is also a dilemma

Since every law is born from a system of values and beliefs, aren't they all legislating morality?...Is there really any difference between morality and religious morality?....

Laws are not legislated "just" to be enforced when they are broken, they are also legislated to teach or influence us...Like it or not, laws play a part in shaping our beliefs and ACTIONS, good or bad....

As far as I'm concerned, trying to seperate morality from law would not only be destructive, it would be impossible...Legislating morality is not the issue, deciding which moral system should be legal is the issue...

Belief can be true or false. Knowledge cannot be false.

Are you denying that I know what red hair is?

Man has had to go through these stages of knowledge being all that is available at the time and no way of acquiring the next level of knowledge at that time.

I think that you're calling false belief "knowledge", and that doing increases the difficulty of understanding the difference between belief and knowledge - and they're not equal.

Most workers these days wander from low paying job to low paying job hand to mouth. Many do not have a pension or healthcare that is affordable.

I found the biggest bennefit to being in a union is the recall rights we all know the economy has ups and downs and if your not in a union many companies use it as an excuse to dump older workers replaceing them with younger and lower paid employees with less vacation time etc etc.

Our contract states that senority is the last laid off and the first called back.


Its well worth the fifty bucks a month I pay in union dues to have this security.

I make, not bragging cuz no one realy knowes me, 60 to 70 a year plus beneffits and a company funded pension.

Time and a half over eight and saturdays double on sundays and holidays.

I can recall when cashiers at a grocery store got overtime pay on saturdays. The country as a whole was far better off.

1. as a christian, I may not even want a school teaching my kid about sex in the first place, in which case I can choose (like an atheist) to opt out and teach them what I want, how I want to, at home.

my personal view is that sex education does not have to include information on EVERY variation of sex, it only needs to explain how to not catch disease or where babies come from, , there is no NEED to address it as homosexual because the parts are the same regardless of the relationship,,MALE FEMALE,,,Vaginal or ANAL or oral,,,,

bringing sexual preference into it only forces parents children to be exposed to things which they may have no other reason to be exposed to,,,,children, regardless of sexual preference, do well to know where babies come from and know about the PARTS of the male or female human body.

I see it as more shoving sexual preference down impressionable kids throats to insist that homosexual be mentioned in a sex education class. Sex, Male , and Female along with the anatomy is really all thats relevant and common to EVERYONE.

I dont feel 'punished' because the law doesnt see my situation with EXACTLY the same privileges (or responsibilities) as those who have committed to each other before creating and raising a child together. THat is something that should continue to be encouraged as the most IDEAL gift we can give children for their foundation in a growingly complicated world.

3. As a christian, I can be prevented from raising my child if the other parent has more money or more resources because of the 'balance' that culture has legislated as expected or healthy for a child

I dont agree with preventing people by law from raising there children for any reason but abuse

WE never hear people 'blame' christians for legislation against murder even though its a pretty specific CHRISTIAN doctrine. BUt people often 'blame' christians for any other restrictive legislation if they are able to find it anywhere in a bible. As if people would not possibly hold those values and opinions without religion.

5.As a christian, I often wonder why history only teaches about the 'good stuff' our founders achieved and doesnt mention any of their less than desirable actions or behaviors, to the point where they are REVERED even though they were no more or less flawed than any other person.

I dont know that history really deals in sexual preference even of heterosexuals unless to mention whom someone was married to, nor do I understand what sexual preference would have to do with studying achievements.

Giving people credit in history for their accomplishments does not require wrapping their identity up in those labels anymore than sexual preference has anything to do with what one has accomplished, unlike race or gender which are harder to hide 'in a closet' so to speak and out in the open for all to see and put obstacles up against.

alot here but I will try to address how common these issues are to both sides

1. as a christian, I may not even want a school teaching my kid about sex in the first place, in which case I can choose (like an atheist) to opt out and teach them what I want, how I want to, at home.

my personal view is that sex education does not have to include information on EVERY variation of sex, it only needs to explain how to not catch disease or where babies come from, , there is no NEED to address it as homosexual because the parts are the same regardless of the relationship,,MALE FEMALE,,,Vaginal or ANAL or oral,,,,

bringing sexual preference into it only forces parents children to be exposed to things which they may have no other reason to be exposed to,,,,children, regardless of sexual preference, do well to know where babies come from and know about the PARTS of the male or female human body.

I see it as more shoving sexual preference down impressionable kids throats to insist that homosexual be mentioned in a sex education class. Sex, Male , and Female along with the anatomy is really all thats relevant and common to EVERYONE.

2. The law doesnt forbid me from any relation I want. The law also does nothing to promote or encourage me to make the CHOICE to raise a child without a father, or to marry someone with the same parentage, than it promotes the choice of a homosexual to raise children with only one gender to guide them or to marry someone with the same anatomy.

I dont feel 'punished' because the law doesnt see my situation with EXACTLY the same privileges (or responsibilities) as those who have committed to each other before creating and raising a child together. THat is something that should continue to be encouraged as the most IDEAL gift we can give children for their foundation in a growingly complicated world.

3. As a christian, I can be prevented from raising my child if the other parent has more money or more resources because of the 'balance' that culture has legislated as expected or healthy for a child, much like the balance of mother and father that culture determines to be healthy for a child is often argued to try to deny homosexual pairings form raising children.

I dont agree with preventing people by law from raising there children for any reason but abuse. Im sure many atheists agree with me. Im also equally sure that there are many atheists who also arent too supportive of the idea of father father child rearing or mother mother child rearing. Although those who would oppose a biological parents right to raise a child must be the extreme on either side.

4. As a christian, it troubles me that people try to force the notion that humans are 'unchangable' in any character trait, tendency, preference or whatever, the same way it troubles non christians when the notion is forced that things like homosexuality CAN indeed be changed.

I believe before there were millions of christians, before there was a bible, there were people who believed those things or they would never have written them down. I believe its false logic to assume those particular objections are the effect of religion in isolation as opposed to culture, environment, and any other number of factors that help build an individuals 'values' as they grow and experience life. WE never hear people 'blame' christians for legislation against murder even though its a pretty specific CHRISTIAN doctrine. BUt people often 'blame' christians for any other restrictive legislation if they are able to find it anywhere in a bible. As if people would not possibly hold those values and opinions without religion.

5.As a christian, I often wonder why history only teaches about the 'good stuff' our founders achieved and doesnt mention any of their less than desirable actions or behaviors, to the point where they are REVERED even though they were no more or less flawed than any other person. I dont know that history really deals in sexual preference even of heterosexuals unless to mention whom someone was married to, nor do I understand what sexual preference would have to do with studying achievements.

Who a person is is not wrapped up in their sexual preference or their dietary preference or their taste in music. Giving people credit in history for their accomplishments does not require wrapping their identity up in those labels anymore than sexual preference has anything to do with what one has accomplished, unlike race or gender which are harder to hide 'in a closet' so to speak and out in the open for all to see and put obstacles up against. ANd bulling also doesnt require going into peoples preferences. Bullying is about behavior, it only needs to be addressed as an unhealthy and unfavorable behavior. The root cause of bullying is 'difference' of any type and that covers all subcategories of the bullied like smart kids, poor kids, fat kids, homeless kids, homosexual kids,,etc. ITs universal enough without making it ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY.

6. Behavior has to be visible to determine that its 'irrational'. Christians are highly exposed. What atheists do doesnt have quite the same open exposure. How often do you hear a news piece where they even mention someones affiliation with religion UNLESS they are religious? All those times its not mentioned at all, its possible those people are atheists but it isnt CALLED OUT in the same manner as it is for 'religious'.

in any case,, my point was only to say that we are all flawed, and we could all do to be more aware of whether we are addressing behaviors or just insulting humans,,,whatever our beliefs,,,

yea, unions aren't real big here in texas... but there are a few here

^^ this pertains to states where unions have a stranglehold on employees and employers.

EXACTLY Harmony, EXACTLY...This is what I was trying to say.....I guess I didn't do a very good job....As to Redy's post...I understood what you meant by making it public, but here's the thing..Some people are always going to make public their religious views, their political views, their hatreds and their loves...Some will publicly endorse or denounce anything and everything if they are presented the opportunity...Some will make public threats, some will stand up and testify.....Some of us will be bothered by it, some will not......Like Harmony said, we can't control other people....

And, if someone was sitting beside me in a restaurant, a theater, on an airplane, anywhere, silently praying for my demise it would not matter chit to me because I would not know ......

Transparency is always good thing no matter the subject.....So yeah, I guess we can learn some things about the peeps who pray out loud in public...I guess we can learn some things about what they are praying about or for, but first we have to be willing to listen...really listen....

unless it turns into ACTIONS,,,,

OK, I'll bite....But first a disclaimer...Redyke everyone knows you are brilliant so if you try to take advantage of me I'm walkin!

I can't even wrap my head around your statement "perhaps the real power of prayer is how it influences and supports non-tolerance and even hatred" because it sounds completely ridiculous...

IMHO prayer is personal.....If I do it, when I do it, how I do it, and why I do it, ALL PERSONAL....Maybe that is why it doesn't bother me when others do it in public and sometime I even find it comforting because I can sense those doing it are actually experiencing something that feels good to them.....In that respect prayer or praying is effective in accomplishing "positive" results....

To say taking prayer public is a sure way to create animosity, indicate the level of one's tolerance for another's beliefs, and demonstrate a persons "true" character is like saying tomorrow at 9:05 AM, Eastern Standard Time, the sky will fall.....

Who’s Praying For Their Enemies to Get Breast Cancer?
by Paul Canning
April 25, 2012

A women’s prayer group is praying for their fellow women fighting for a secular military to get incurable breast cancer.

The prayer group wrote to a leader of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) that:

We pray that the women who work in your MRFF and the women in your family will befall fast moving breast cancer which can not everbe [sic] cured.

The email was addressed to the founder of MRFF Michael Weinstein and followed him hanging up the phone on an abusive call from a member of the prayer group. It names 14 key women members of MRFF and says that they pray they get breast cancer.

The email says: “America … is Jesus’ country.” MRFF has been fighting since 2005 against a concerted push by what Weinstein calls “the fundamentalist Christian Taliban” against the separation of church and state in the military, and the email is just one example of the nasty push back Weinstein, as well as other supporters of MRFF, has received.

Weinstein is a Republican, Honor Graduate of the United States Air Force Academy and from three generations of members of the military. He established the foundation after his sons received religious discrimination at the Academy, as he had also received. He says:

This battle started because I was a pissed off parent. I found out that my sons were being called f..ing Jews and being accused of total complicity in the execution of Jesus Christ at the United States Air Force Academy.

Weinstein believes that the activities of the ‘Christian Taliban’ “is creating an internal national security threat.”

Since 2005, more than 27,000 active duty members of the United States Armed Forces have asked for support from MRFF as ‘spiritual rape victims/tormentees.’ 96% of the service men and women are Christians themselves. Among the cases the group has litigated are those of threats of violence against atheist service persons.

It was MRFF who uncovered the Jesus rifles controversy, when rifle scopes manufactured by US government contractor Trijicon were discovered to be engraved with biblical scripture citations.

Last year, MRFF uncovered that the ethical indoctrination course material for nuclear missile launch officers contained Christian militarist components.

Of the latest assault on the group, MRFF says:

MRFF’s fight is against the most extreme religious zealots the United States has to offer. The same extremist mentality causing women to pray for the cancer deaths of fourteen wonderful women has also resulted in U.S. Marines posing next to a Nazi SS flag, a Marine Fighter Squadron fighting under the name and imagery of Crusaders, Air Force nuclear missile launch officers effectively being taught that “Jesus Loves Nukes”, along with countless other examples of blatantly unconstitutional and maliciously inappropriate religious incursion in the military.

MRFF’s significant base of Christian supporters often shares their horror at the actions undertaken by fundamentalist Christian extremists that give all Christians a bad name and awful reputation. Many Christians ask themselves, “What would Jesus do?” Would Jesus pray for the deaths of fourteen women?

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation holds that it’s vitally important that this type of extremist mentality is no longer allowed to take root in our military. Whether you’re Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan, Sikh, celebrate another faith tradition, or none at all, MRFF calls for you to stand together in support of this simple standard: We will not tolerate harm, threats, or abuse in the name of religion.

Read more:
http://www.care2.com/causes/whos-praying-for-their-enemies-to-get-breast-cancer.html#ixzz1tX0GI06x

In short...

knowledge is accrued.

Rather, I'm interested in discussing what constitutes sufficient reason to believe something(X), and what constitutes an adequate criterion to call something(X) knowledge.

The methods of testing our information and assessing the outcomes are directly related to all the tools at our disposal including, education, intellectual ability, access to new information, and environmental factors including, the freedom to be at liberty to address falshoods,persuade others of the errors, and adapt to the social consequences.

While I realize that many may hold that lack of contrary evidence is sufficient reason to believe something, I would say that that is insufficient reason. There is no contrary evidence to many unbelievable ideas, but we find no reason to believe those, nor usefulness in entertaining some of them.

I mostly agree. However, the first statement strikes me as a conflation between belief and knowledge. If " Everything individuals believe is considered to be part of their knowledge base" is true, then it would follow that all belief is equal to knowledge, and belief in God is knowledge.

Belief can be true or false. Knowledge cannot be false.

So, how then do we develop the ability to be able to see error in our teachers' view/teaching?

So, how then do we develop the ability to be able to see error in our teachers' view/teaching?

here am asking why the terrorism, and terrorist word only used for the muslims. And craminal used for non muslim. Is the terrorist word bound only with muslims?

How about we stop giving billions of dollars in foreign aid to other countries. Especially the ones that want to kill us. That seems kinda wacko to me.