I agree, practically it's an issue of low importance, however that goes both ways; if people are offended by it, why is there so much resistance of removing it? While not being practically important, it's undoubtably a pretty prestigous one for both sides; non-christians really don't like how it signals that non religious institutions are actually somehow connected to christianity, and on the other side, the christians fight to the bitter end to keep their religious symbols and texts at places they shouldn't be.

LMFAO@people that believe theories are facts!

do they teach the Gettysburg address in american schools?

this is then a serious question.. how do they get around lincoln standing up and saying under god this nation shall yada yada yada freedom? (i don't know it exactly and am lazy to google search the exact wording..)

or do they just kind of.. skim over it, and focus on more relevant issues concerning that particular part of american history? :P

If churches gave away all money they got to charity, how come there are church buildings? Priests (of which some are insanely rich)? Organs that didn't get donated by some rich buddy? Well kept graveyards? Christian billboards? Stuff like this costs money, since the church spends money on these things, which isn't charity, everything obviously doesn't go to charity...

You may also note that neither of the things you mentioned are things that are usually taxed either way (unless you yanks have substantially different laws to us, which I'm not aware of).

My theory is still that you are trolling. :P

i see advertisement for breast cancer awareness every day.. advertising isn't charity, no tax exemption.

the church in and of itself is a charity- they feed the poor, shelter the homeless and the rich give them the money to do it. wealthy congregations give massive amounts of money to poor congregations. feed children in africa, help set up medical aid stations in the middle east, teach south americans how to read and write; how to better themselves in this world.

are you serious? again, try actually attending church. go, with an open mind, and realize we aren't stealing your liberty or constitutionally protected rights and whats more, is we have no interest in doing either.


(i am NOT anti-charity, and certainly not pro-cancer, so don't take this the wrong way, please)

i am canadian and lost as to what you're referencing here

"You may also note that neither of the things you mentioned are things that are usually taxed either way"

i mentioned only things that are not taxed, as they should not be taxed?

sorry, i smoke pot and often confuse myself (and it isn't a sin, no, genesis 1:26 :P)

The word theory as used in a scientific sense such as Theory of evolution and theory of relativity essential means that it is an excepted explanation for observed phenomenon and that there is no evidence to contradict the theory...a hypothesis that has been rigorously tested yielding the same results. Unless you would like to claim that relativity has not yet been proven.

And atheism is NOT a religion. It is simply the lack of a belief in the existence of a god.

I do not believe that there is a god and I believe that there is no god are two very different statements.

Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god. PERIOD
Some atheists may take it further and say that they believe that there is no god but that is their personal belief.

Many atheists do share or have a proclivity towards other ideologies but its not a requirement.

"they have a symbol, believe system, leaders, and gathering places, hence, religion!"

What symbol?
A lack of a belief is a belief system?
What leader? There may be people who have gained media attention or notoriety but that does not make them leaders, there is no hierarchy.
Many groups that are not religions have gatherings, but that doesn't make them a religion.

By your definition the NRA, Pro-life, Pro-choice and a host of other groups are a religion.

As for why Atheists are so against religion....

Again this is a personal choice not a requirement but for those that are vocally against the existence of religion, one of the most common reasons would be the hate and oppression that religions can and often do promote.

Many atheists do recognize the positive benefits that religion can provide for a society or community but feel the bad outweighs the good and those benefits can be provided by other means without the negatives that often coexist with religion.

I am an atheists and my personal belief is this...

I have yet to see proof for the existence of a god and there are better explanations for the world around me that those provided by any religion I have yet to encounter therefor I do not believe that there is a god.

I believe that we should all be allowed to believe what we wish. However, if your beliefs cause you to infringe upon the rights of others or cause others harm then I will challenge that right.

Nope, advertising isn't inheritly charity, not sure where you are going.

You totally missed my point... No, the church in itself is NO charity. It spends money on charity, but so does many other organisations which are not granted tax reductions.

I'm baptized and was brought up christian in a "christian" home. My parents arn't really hardcore christians, though they're still formally members of the swedish church. I even payed church taxes for a year or two. I attend church at times, to show my support for their union in love/their new born child/pay my respects to someone who has passed away, and at each of these occations I stand through the parts of the ceremonies praising god. It's really the worst parts of going to church, I'd rather just sit there and be glad for my relatives/think about whomever passed away.

Atheists are not devoid of morality as some theists think.

A theist has a religion for spiritual reasons and from what I perceive, also largely for the hope that there is something after death; they also may possibly wish to think that life is to wonderful and detailed to have 'just' happened and thus credit a god for creation of the world they see around them -as many people have before them. While it is a nice notion there is no sound evidence for such a fanciful hope, although (for the Theists dreamy minds-it can not be disproven...yet (lol)) Perhaps death and creation does happen in such a way (though then one could argue any number of stories for creationism).

What one may find reading more into the histories of religion is that, modern religions should not be taken blatantly at face-value. Religions and worships have their beginnings and finding their roots can tell you more than just the spirituality lessons that people garner from them, but about past cultures, archaeology, geographic distributions etc.

Check out this link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg

(Also the above dude's link has other episodes that span into philosophic ideas and get away from the religion aspect).

I dont give a flying fluff what the other groups are or aren't, we are talking religion and atheism here, and no, evolution of humans is still not been determined due to the gaps andd missing links in the chronological time table.

No they should not, we agree. But I find it hard that the majority of a church's income comes from bazaar bake sales and such. But the income from it's members definately should be, as this income are transactions paying for a multitude of services, something which is normally taxed. (not sure if this is what you meant by tithe, I imagine that you meant sending a bad around during service for people to put donations in).

That is because some practice their religion more correctly than others, that doesn't mean that there aren't universal principles in each religion.

Not to mention Christianity is not the only religion. Scientology and Mormonism are even more exploitative

so instead of believing something that (supposedly) has incomplete evidence for it, you choose to believe something that has literally no evidence supporting it?

look, just because they haven't found the fossils of some random intermediate creature at some point doesn't mean that there isn't an absolute boatload of evidence supporting the evolutionary mechanism. this is true for humans as well. we've found evidence of species that are extremely close to humans that pre-date humans, we've explained how the changes from those creatures to humans benefited humans in terms of survival, what more do you want? we haven't mapped out every species that currently exists, how on earth do you expect us to be able to map out the evolution of every human from the first single celled organisms?

if I was gay, I'd say the churches were at the forefront of the movement to keep me from being able to marry

if I was a woman looking to have an abortion, I'd say the churches were at the forefront of the movement to prevent that

if I was looking to engage in casual sex, I'd say the catholic church's views on contraception (or at least former views) were pretty restrictive

(and numerous other examples)

We may not know they exact evolutionary path of humans but evolution has been observed in humans and virtually every other species. There is an astounding amount of evidence supporting evolution. Evolution as a biological phenomenon is a reality.

Your logic is flawed. Using your argument, should i assume that gravity does not exist because we don't fully understand every single minute aspect of it?

++1

PP, where the fk i say i believe in either one?, and the missing links should have been found since they are younger than most of the fossils they claim to be our ancestors.

*grabs the popcorn*

Consider how long back and how few fossils we find as a percentage of organisms that have ever been alive; it's not surprising in the least that we have yet to find all sorts of things. In fact it never ceases to amaze me that we can find any at all given the geologic forces and timescales at work here... you literally have to have the PERFECT conditions to preserve a fossil...

Add:

Religion uses the bible to advance their believes.

Atheistism uses the evolution of humans theories to advance their agenda.

They both have the same flaw, both are incomplete

Um no; most religious people believe in Evolution as far as I'm aware. Evolution and Religion are entirely separate issues. I'm sure there are atheists who don't believe in evolution, though the general idea behind atheists is that they are open minded enough to consider evidence.

you're going to need to be a lot more specific about which links are missing here

also I'm not sure you really understand the theory of evolution as it stands perfectly. we don't know every link in the chain - we know however that the chain exists and the mechanism by which these links are created. just because we don't know exactly what specific species was the link between two other species doesn't mean that we can't reasonably infer that there is a connection.

You didnt understand my last post, qz, and I'm yet to find 1 religeous person to say to me, "we come from monkeys, god doesn't exist"
/facepalm

right, but I know religious people who say that we've evolved from apes

Sorry, PP, that theory ain't perfect, hello?, missing links....

Yes but the big difference is that evolution is a theory that has been formulated using the scientific method, which to me is a much more logical system to frame your beliefs under than whatever method the bible was devised by.

Someone telling me "this is the word of god" (esp. with 10s of groups saying the same thing, none with any evidence to offer over the others) vs. someone telling me we have this theory here, all the current evidence supports it, if you find something contradicting it we'll adjust our beliefs. Which one sounds more logical?

Religious crowd calls them "monkeys", you talked to imposters, bro!

sorry i meant to say currently in my previous post instead of perfectly

but just to rehash
1) the evolutionary mechanism is supported by current evidence.
2) we have a rough idea of the chain of human ancestors.
3) if evidence that goes against either of the two above is found, we alter the theory. that's the beauty of science.

believing in human evolution != believing we understand every step that human evolution has taken so far.

Why do people refuse to believe that Atheism is and ONLY is the lack of a belief in a god? PERIOD End of Sentence Nothing more nothing less.

The only people who say we come from monkeys are those that don't understand evolution. We are a genetic relative of Apes not monkeys.

And why would a religious person believe that a god doesn't exist? I don't think one can be religious without believing in the existence of some god.

PP, yes i agree that the current theory of evolution makes more sence than a book writen, what, 600 years after jesus was crucified?, but its still incomplete :(

Go away andrew, you can't troll for fluff :p

KoH I'm going to assume for the sake of the argument that you follow one of the many varieties of Christianity.

That makes you about 99.999% atheist because you lack a belief in the many other gods that were claimed to exist before and after Christianity came to be.

So what makes you believe that your god does exist?

/facepalm

I said i don't believe in any religion, never said god, I'm not atheist either and don't have a clue what god is.

So you believe that a god does exist but don't know what that god is?

No idea if god exists, no clue what it/he/she is/might be

so you're an agnostic

No, im me, period.

and just because i can you did say god

Reread that

Yes, you are you, but you are also an agnostic. "No idea if god exists, no clue what it/he/she is/might be" That is basically the definition of agnosticism.

Ah ok, yay im laveled! :p

No need. That's how i troll.

And yes you are labeled. Sociologist here who followers the symbolic interactionism THEORY

Wow, nice troll Klown

Once upon a time I would have dived into this with my sleeves rolled up . . . but I've learned to accept that a lot of people are really adamant about clinging to fairey tales. It was good enough for the Mayans and Romans and Norse, so its good enough for us right? Look how well it worked out for them . . .

If we still exist in a thousand years, I wonder what the next generation of zealots will think when they study this generation's extinct religions? That assumes of course that this generation will not succeed in making us extinct on behalf of its faith. The Inca did not have nukes - I for one would not bet against us.

yeah religion made the US nuke japan

/me watches as the point whizzes over the head of yet another sheep . . .

Heh i think you're missing missing the point, which was that the only time a nuke has been used, it was not religiously motivated. when hitler killed millions in the holocaust, he wasn't doing it for religion. say global warming makes the planet uninhabitale - that won't be because of religion. your fear of religion being the cause of the apocalypse seems illogical and irrational

Because there is plenty of archaeological evidence to prove so much in the Bible? Whereas out "idea" of the evolutionary chain, misses the links that are the "jumps" from one stage to the next.

Give me yer country number, i don't need any excusess to Nuke you :p

#666 :P