Achilleez

Yes Bob, you are free to close your home to anyone you choose. You are also free to be a fornicator and adulterer, but that does not make it right.

My question to you is, why? Why have you made the decision to close your home off to atheists? Do you beleive God would disapprove of you helping an atheist? Is it your own personal spite for atheism? Or is it because you have become so prejudiced that you have made the mental connection of atheism with criminal and immoral.

I suppose I am to continue living out my crazy mixed up life in which I try to help all and not judge people based soley on their religious beleifs, or lack thereof.

(This message has been edited by Achilleez)

I admire and comend your resolute faith BW. Yet I fear that it may have overwhelmed your sense of decency. Tell me, honestly, if a naked starving man showed up at your doorstop who you somehow knew was an atheist, would you turn him away? Because if you exist in a frame of mind that forbids assisting this man and letting him into your home, then that makes me all the more hesitant to show interest in your religion.

"Having fun is a communist mentality that seeks to keep people childish."

And I though FOG was a grump.

For me, I was finding it to be a fascinating debate, stirring up some things that I havn't thought about since philosophy class. My objective is to explain my position while at the same time come to a better understanding of his position.

By the way Wheeler, as long as we are using Aristotle to argue for us, it's interesting to note that according to Aristotle's own logic, the existence of a God would be impossible. The 'four causes' model explains that every object in the universe is a result of the material cause, formal cause, essential cause, and final cause. God has no material cause (what is he made of?) God has no formal cause (no plan or design for the creation of him) and God has no essential cause (No person or thing is responsible for putting him together)

Thus, using Aristotle's own logic, I have proved that God cannot exist. I make this ridiculous conclusion in the hopes that Wheeler will stop quoting ancient philosophers.

So your claim is that God has always been. If that's true then he will exist 1 000 000 years in the future, as well as 1 000 000 years in the past. Tell me, if I took a time machine and went backwards 50 000 years, where would I be? In the infinite darkness of space with no energy or matter anywhere? What I could never understand in the church is why, out of God's infinite life in the cosmos, was the universe created only 30 000 years ago? Why not before, because after all God has existed forever. You want to punch down my arguement by asking how the mathematical formulas were created. Well, the answer is as simple as yours. They have been around forever, they were never created. They were around an infinite number of years ago and they will continue to be around for an infinite number of years. A universe controlled by mathematical formulas is just as plausible as a universe controlled by an all-powerful superghost.

"I sincerely hope that this stops soon. "

Laurie hopes that Scouting will stop soon!! Betrayer!!

Life is a cereal bowl of knowledge.

My spoon is small but my stomach is hungry.

I am perfectly aware of the mathematicians that concluded that the existence of a God was the only possible explanation for the beginning and creation of mathematics. I am also perfectly aware that people used to conclude that angels who pushed the moon and sun around was the only possible explanation for the movement of these objects.

Your right, every action has an infinite number of reactions stretching out into the future and also had an infinite number of causes stretching out into the past. As some beleive, that line of causes has to reach a beginning somewhere. But that has not been proven to be true. Resulting from years of research upon meteorites and our own planet, there has been the general conclusion that the universe began somewhere in the area of four and a half billion years ago. However, Steven Hawkings presented the idea that the cosmic 'big bang' was not necessarily the first of its kind to occur. He speculated that the universe was in a continual cosmic cycle of expanding to a certain volume, and then collapsing in upon itself. This cycle has been repeated an infinite number of times and will continue to repeat an infinite number of times. His theory was that we are simply existing along one of those cycles, and that the universe was currently in the process of expaning, similarily to the way the earth is currently in the process of warming (naturally). Einstein's theories about time consisted with Hawking's hypothesis. Einstein stated that time was a dimension unlike any others. It had no beginning and no end, could not be ended or started.

Again, all hypothetical. And personally I try not to give myself a headache trying to make sense of it all. The point being, you are stating that the existence of God has to be simply because there had to be an action to begin the infinite number of reactions that followed it. But therein lies the gaping hole in your logic. If God was the creator, who created the creator? I know a watch-maker exists because he was born from parents who pro-created to make him/her. Are you saying to me that the very dimension of time did not exist before the comming of God? Or did God already exist for an infinite spanse of time in which he chose not to create us. And only 30 000 years ago, out of his infinite trillions of years of existence, did he decide to make a universe? My question for you remains unanswered. Where did God come from? What existed prior to 30 000 years ago? Or did this diety just suddenly appear out of thin nothingness for no apparent reason? You know perfectly well that you can't answer that to my satisfaction, just as I know I won't get a satisfactory answer. As for me, I truly and honestly don't beleive that everything just "appeared" out of thin air one day.

Wherever this gaping hole in my heart exists that you presume I have, I don't know where it is. To answer your earlier question, yes, I am perfectly comfortable in the beleif that the universe can be scientifically and mathematically explained. I own my own businesses on a farm that has been mortgage free for the past 11 years. I have a wife and family whom I love. If I continue my business for another 5-10 years, I will be able to look forward to a nice and happy retirement. I have acheived these things because of my hard work and dependable reputation among clients. Life has been good to me, because I have worked hard for it.

If there is a God then I am grateful to him. Until I see unrefutable evidence of that, I am content to beleive that science will explain all in due time. Please do not pity me, or think that I have angrily rejected anything. I only hope that someday your heart might thaw out and all would be welcome in your home.

I will agree to the beginning of your post. Given the atmosphere, I have since realized that making such a request was not the most logical of things to do. Not that it has proved useless however, for I am now wiser than I was at the beginning of this post, due to replies of others. This is of course a driving reason for the existence of a forum such as this: allow people to express what's on their mind, listen to what others have to say and become a wiser person for it.

What I will not agree to is your claim that I do not share the respect of the values the BSA attempts to instill upon its members.

"In the future Scouting will continue to:

Offer young people responsible fun and adventure;

Instill in young people lifetime values and develop in them ethical character as expressed in the Scout Oath and Law;

Train young people in citizenship, service, and leadership;

Serve America's communities and families with its quality, values-based program"

I don't know where or how you have come to the conclusion that I disagree with any of the above statements. True, I am an atheist and thus not welcomed by the BSA, but I still think the world would be better off if more of the world's youth had the opportunity to undergo programs like scouting. This is why I signed up my son, who is not an athiest to my knowledge. Beleive me I would be a member if my beleifs allowed it.

It seems confusing that in order to defend the truth of scripture, Wheeler has chosen to give me scripture quotes. Does no one realize that to someone who does not put stock in the bible, biblical quotes won't convince him of much?

I agree, 'hate' was the wrong word choice.

To rephrase: "Although I still do not regard this as proof to disapprove of the act of homosexuality, I see why some would".

This is simply because personally biblical passages mean little to me. But I see now how Christians justify their claim that God condemns homosexuality.

And all of the people of the world were gathered at the gates of God's Kingdom awaiting judgement. God took all the people and gathered them into his hands.

To his right hand he said, "You have been good to me. I was hungry and you fed me. I was thirsty and you gave me water. I was naked and you clothed me. I was sick and you comforted me. I was in jail and you visited me. For this you shall be rewarded will eternal life in my kingdom."

To his left hand he spoke to Bob White, "You have not been good to me. I was hungry and you did not feed me. I was thirsty and you did not give me water. I was naked and you did not cloth me. I was sick and you did not comfort me. I was in jail and you did not visit me."

And Bob White said, "When were you hungry? When were you thirsty? When were you naked? When were you sick? When were you in jail? For I never saw you."

And God said, "I was in the atheist, Achilleez"

And Bob White was cast down into the demons for eternity.

Rooster7,

After refering to a bible I have kicking around the house, I whole-heartedly admit my mistake. I now see the direct message the bible gives towards homosexuality. Although I still do not regard this as proof that we should all hate homosexuals, I see why some would.

Adrianvs,

I tried to look up your part, but couldn't find anything regarding to not eating 'clean' or 'unclean' animals. Perhaps you could give a specific passage reference. And I havn't given up. Infact I have spent a large quantity of time trying to figure out what makes people beleive that every word in a two-thousand year old book must be true. But I still can't make sense of it.

BW,

I do not claim to know the origin of the premises on which we live and function. I simply choose to beleive that the universe is ordered and structered based on natural forces which can be described mathematically. Yet the question of our two situations is the exact same : what started it? How was your God created and how were my natural forces created.

Both questions completely unanswerable. Again, our situations are not completely different. I beleive the natural forces are not sentient but you beleive they are.

Oh, and if God intented his Christians not to let atheists in their homes the world would be a sad place.

God told me to come here.

Are you going to lecture me about using only bible verses that you want to? Are you going to claim that every aspect of the bible must be followed literally? If so you are more hypocritical than I thought. Do you eat pork? Do you eat animals that are "clean" or "unclean"? Or have you disregarded those terms because you feel they no longer apply today.

I can understand that I will never come to full agreement on this matter since personally I do not follow the bible to strict adherence. But, you cannot allow yourself to be so blinded as to carry words two thousand years forward and expect them to have the exact same meaning as they did at the time they were written. The bible forbids homosexuality because at the time it meant fornication and disrespect for an opponent. It is possible that it also meant perversion or disrespect for God's creation, but it does not say so.

It is not my interpretation of the bible that permits frustration, it is yours. If this is indeed divine word inspired by an all-powerful creator, do you really think it needs you shouting at me to protect itself?

ps. when did I refer to myself as a being greater than god?

"No one knows it exists"

Forgive my rudeness, but Canada is quite recognized. Though most Americans are quite ignorant of it, you depend on us almost as much as we depend on you. Your northern states would be in quite a pickle without trade with us. Canada and the US breath together economically, you can see it if you look at any business cycle graph over the last 100 years.

Being that homosexuality is one of the most debated topics on this forum, I felt obliged to get this monkey off my shoulder. I don't at all mind debate over homosexuality or its place in private organizations such as the BSA, but what really fuses me is the constant use of the bible as a weapon against gay rights. I know that is says in the bible (no idea where) that theives, murderers, adulterers, fornicators, and homosexuals will not see God's kingdom (or something along those lines anyway). This and similar passages in scripture are among the most prominent weapons used to justify homosexual discrimination.

However, biblical passages like these must be looked at in context. They were written at a time when homosexual couples would have been unheard of, let alone homosexual marriage. So therefore, of course any homosexual would have automatically been and adulterer / fornicator. In addition, when wars were faught in this age, the victorious armies would often rape the losers, as a type of final humiliation. Homosexuality was almost always committed under sinful circumstances, so of course the bible would speak against it.

But today we live in an age where victorious armies do not rape the losers and homosexuals can, if given the chance, live in relationships being faithful to one partner.

As for me, I disapprove of homosexuality for reasons entirely different, so I am not defending it or attacking those who disapprove of it. I am simply requesting that people on this forum cease from ignorantly brandishing the bible as their weapon of discrimination.

Atheism is my beleif system. State that it implies no degree of science if you like, but that is simply not true, at least not to me. To me, the universe can be described through a system of mathematical equations, extremely complicated equations, but a system non the less. If I go to a zoo, it is living proof of my beleif system. Hundreds of animals that exist on very complicated parameters. The animal that needs a beak, has a beak. The animal that needs strong legs for running, has strong legs for running. In this way our beleifs are not so very different, the difference being that I beleive these systems exist because of the very complicated formulas for natural life, and that you beleive the process is controlled by an all-powerful diety.

Bob White, I still cannot figure out how exactly you define religion. If "religion" means a beleif system that revolves around an all powerful superbeing (God, Allah, Brahman, whoever) and a lifestyle defined by scripture in a book written thousands of years ago in a language no longer commonly spoken, written and re-written hundreds of times by monks who were the only literate people at that age, and that very same book which has been scientifically proven to be innacurate (Genesis)... then fine, I have no religion.

This is not to say that I completely deny the possibility of the existence of a sort of creator or the past existance of one. I claim to beleive in a system of mathematical formulas, but who designed and made them? I don't know. Perhaps no one, or perhaps it was your God. But the same questions can be asked about your beleifs. Who made God? Why did he make us? Why did he make an infinitely large universe that makes our planet next to zero on the cosmic scale? Why did he choose to create us 30 000 years ago and give us rocks 300 000 000 years old? It is pointless to attempt an endeavor into answering these questions.

On an ironic note, I find it amusing that while Bob White would be welcome in my home, I would get the door slammed in my face.

You took the words out of my mouth.

Well Bob White, how exactly do you define the word religion?

Because if "religion" means how you beleive that the world came to be, how life sustains itself, and how the universe works in general, then I HAVE made my choice. And that choice is to beleive in science. Just because it is not classified as a religion does not mean it deserves any less respect. If I beleived that the entire universe were sneezed out of a giant green nose and called it a religion, then would you respect it?

The following isn't particularily directed at this thread. But I figured it was a good of place as any to put it. Nor do I share the views presented in it. But Gwynne Dyer is a respected Canadian historian and journalist, and this is what he had to say on terrorism.

West Overrates Terrorism

The Toronto Star ^ | September 10, 2003 | Gwynne Dyer

Posted on 09/10/2003 11:28:07 AM PDT by quidnunc

Two years on, Sept. 11 is still a raw anniversary for most Americans, who cannot forget the terrible scenes in lower Manhattan as more than 3,000 people died in a terrorist attack. But not one further American has died from Islamist terrorism on home soil since then. Was it all just a flash in the pan?

The Bush administration pumps up the terrorist threat to distract attention from the economy and provide a pretext for some other actions.

But for all the colour-coded alerts and the thousands of suspects held without trial, all the paranoia and duct tape, the past two years have been among the most terrorism-free in modern American history. Apart from the brief anthrax panic that cost four or five lives in late 2001, even the domestic crazies are giving it a rest.

Islamist terrorism is down in the rest of the world, too. If you ignore local conflicts of a more or less colonial character in which terrorism already played a major role before 9/11, the total number of deaths worldwide in Islamist attacks in the past two years is 348 and fewer than 50 of the victims were Americans.

For obvious diplomatic reasons, the governments in Moscow, Tel Aviv and New Delhi have been trying to redefine their own local struggles with Muslim opponents as part of America's global "war on terrorism," but it just won't fly.

The Palestinian militants of Hamas and Islamic Jihad only attack Israelis, the Kashmiri and Pakistani militants of Lashkar-e-Taiba and their associates only attack Indians, and the Chechen guerrillas only hit Russian targets.

In every case the basic quarrel is about territory, and the terrorists see themselves acting in a tradition of national liberation war that stretches back to the Irish, Israeli, and Algerian wars of independence (all of which involved a good deal of terrorism).

The recent terrorist attacks in Iraq also don't count, whether carried out by secular Baathists or the burgeoning Islamic resistance movement, since they are part of a local struggle against foreign occupation. What's left after all that is genuine international Islamist terrorism and there isn't very much of it.

Add up the attacks.

Nothing for six months after 9/11, and then an attack on a Christian church in a diplomatic compound in Islamabad, Pakistan in March, 2002, in which five people were killed including the wife and daughter of an American diplomat.

A truck laden with explosives and driven into a synagogue in Tunisia in April, 2002, killing 21 tourists, mostly Germans. A suicide bomb in Karachi in May, 2002 that killed 14, including 11 French engineers working on a defence project.

Another long gap until the fall, then the attack on a Bali nightclub last October that killed 202 people, mostly Western tourists. In the same month a suicide bomber attacked a French oil tanker off Yemen, killing one crewman.

Last November, other suicide bombers drove into an Israeli-owned hotel in Mombasa, killing 15 people and injuring 80, mostly Kenyans. In May of this year, suicide bombers in Saudi Arabia hit a foreign compound in Riyadh, killing 34, and others in Morocco blew themselves up in a number of places around Casablanca, killing 45.

Finally, in August, 12 people were killed in the bombing of the Marriott hotel in Jakarta.

And that's it. In two years, a total of 348 people have died in seven countries in attacks that could be loosely linked with Al Qaeda or its many affiliates and emulators far fewer than have been killed by bolts of lightning in the same period.

Global terrorism is a highly overrated threat.

The attackers on 9/11 were extraordinarily successful because they employed teams of suicide hijackers including trained pilots, a new and unforeseen technique that would only be a surprise once, and because nobody was on a high state of alert.

They changed everybody's perception of terrorism because of the number of deaths they caused, and because they struck at the nerve centres of the world's greatest power. But since then, it's been back to low-tech attacks on soft targets, and the terrorists haven't been having much success.

Even if the U.S. invasion of Iraq generates a whole new wave of terrorist recruits, it won't make much difference to this larger picture so long as the terrorists' weapons remain conventional. So-called "weapons of mass destruction," like poison gas and biological agents, aren't really very impressive either; in a real-life situation, they would generally be no more lethal than a well-placed truck bomb.

A nuclear attack would be entirely another matter, of course, but how likely is that? Extremely unlikely: Terrorists do not have the resources to make nuclear weapons, and no existing government would give them one.

No Muslim country, except Pakistan, even owns any nuclear weapons, and one of the unspoken truths of the current international order is that a takeover by radical Islamists in a nuclear-weapons state would trigger instant and decisive international action to disarm it. (Not that the invasion of Iraq was about that; Iraq had neither radical Islamists in charge nor WMD, which is why so few countries followed the U.S. lead.)

Terrorism is not an enormous threat to life as we know it. It is a marginal nuisance that some governments find useful to inflate into an enormous bogeyman. We should all get a grip on reality and stop worrying so much.

Yes, that statement was necessary.

Why? Because the first time I mentioned I was Canadian, me and my friends were called socialists.