TTI Forums

Watched a program last weekend with a mixed group of young people (European, US, Palestinian Israeli, Lebanese). The spirit was to bring these people of differing backgrounds together to gain insight and understanding as the group traveled though the Middle East.

In the beginning of the show each person was asked to “tell the group who you are”. Perhaps it was the first person that started a trend, but each person defined themselves in several ways: by their religion; by their ethnicity (sometimes); and by their nationality. I was sadden when the exercise closed and the noodley-greatness of the FSM was not mentioned (I should have expected it – none of those kids looked like pirates.)

On their first stop in Israel the kids were asked to sing the Israeli national anthem. The words are very focused around an exclusively Jewish (Zionist) state. Several of the Islamic kids were repulsed by the singing exercise. And I got their point. I also thought about all those countries with the “stan” suffix where persons with non-Islamic views are KILLED for any display branded as heresy.

The show made me grateful that I was born, and live in the USA. The USA didn’t start out with the view that church and state should be separate, this is a concept that we emulated from the Native Americans (along with our structure of government). As I watched, I came to a conclusion that most of the world’s conflicts are really about the commingling of church and state, and the abuses that rise from this unholy marriage.

• Would a world peace solution involve global separation of church and state?
• How can the USA side with Israel, when Israel is fundamentally no different than Iran (albeit the degree of atrocities are far different)?
• Does a religious state really just stand for selective representation of the chosen? Doesn’t this mean that by definition every religious state is unjust?

See the cause of this whole complex subject boils down to one basic tenant of all religions,

• “We have all the answers, all the rest of those guys don’t know what they are talking about. You’ll be eternally damned if you listen to them, (kill them – accessory option).”

“Thank your for your order, would you like a side of genocide with that?”

musashi wrote:Watched a program last weekend with a mixed group of young people (European, US, Palestinian Israeli, Lebanese). The spirit was to bring these people of differing backgrounds together to gain insight and understanding as the group traveled though the Middle East.

In the beginning of the show each person was asked to “tell the group who you are”. Perhaps it was the first person that started a trend, but each person defined themselves in several ways: by their religion; by their ethnicity (sometimes); and by their nationality. I was sadden when the exercise closed and the noodley-greatness of the FSM was not mentioned (I should have expected it – none of those kids looked like pirates.)

On their first stop in Israel the kids were asked to sing the Israeli national anthem. The words are very focused around an exclusively Jewish (Zionist) state. Several of the Islamic kids were repulsed by the singing exercise. And I got their point. I also thought about all those countries with the “stan” suffix where persons with non-Islamic views are KILLED for any display branded as heresy.

The show made me grateful that I was born, and live in the USA. The USA didn’t start out with the view that church and state should be separate, this is a concept that we emulated from the Native Americans (along with our structure of government). As I watched, I came to a conclusion that most of the world’s conflicts are really about the commingling of church and state, and the abuses that rise from this unholy marriage.

• Would a world peace solution involve global separation of church and state?
• How can the USA side with Israel, when Israel is fundamentally no different than Iran (albeit the degree of atrocities are far different)?
• Does a religious state really just stand for selective representation of the chosen? Doesn’t this mean that by definition every religious state is unjust?

See the cause of this whole complex subject boils down to one basic tenant of all religions,

• “We have all the answers, all the rest of those guys don’t know what they are talking about. You’ll be eternally damned if you listen to them, (kill them – accessory option).”

“Thank your for your order, would you like a side of genocide with that?”

the quote you bolded at the end very much reminds me of: Star Trek- The Borg Collective. You know why? "Resistance if futile, you will be assimilated"

Thats very much what the islamic and other various religions in the middle east tend to do. If they can't assimilate you, well you're dead basically. Unfortunately, the middle east government system IS based on a lot of the religion pratices and laws written in their holy books.

The USA can't interfere with their right to practice religion or make it part of government pratices in another country let alone OUR own country. We now have LAWS requiring employers to excuse certain people due to their certain religion requirements etc etc etc.

As we know, nobody can please anyone it just can't work.

The US may have laws protecting peoples rights to participate in any religion that they like, but the country is run by a christian goverment who continually imbed their christian beliefs into laws and regulations that effect everybody, christian and non-christian alike.

I don't think its run by christian ideals, if it was we wouldn't have problems we have.

I agree the colony started with freedom of religion and founded this country on the basis of God (thats what we see on our dollars bills isn't it?).

the US Government wasn't supposed to screw around and tear down the 10 commandments from a courthouse that had put it there YEARS AGO, hey how would they like it if they decided Mt Rushmore was unconstitutional? Thats basically what they did to the ten commandments in front of a courthouse that was tossed in the air by federal courts and ruled it was unconstitutional... HELLO YOU GUYS PUT IT THERE you can't take back what you put there in the first place!

(now I mean you guys... the older generation, not TTI ), anyway its not really a big issue but it goes to show how skewered the system is.

Raaz Satik wrote:The US may have laws protecting peoples rights to participate in any religion that they like, but the country is run by a Christian government who continually imbed their Christian beliefs into laws and regulations that effect everybody, Christian and non-Christian alike.

There is a decent chance the next President of the US will be a Muslim. (if he ever gets around to actually outlining an agenda).

You are right about the history Raaz, but is that the way it should have been? This fundamental separation is at the very core of why America was colonized. And yet in our global relations, we dismiss this value and say, “Awh it’s alright country X, Y an Z has mixed religion and government and we’ll subsidize them all.”

Shouldn’t the USA refute every theocracy? Shouldn’t every country consider to be theocracy criminal? Is this commingling spirit really the cause of all these global problems?

I agree with Trilori that there has been a steady and incremental removal of religion from US government (mostly by activist courts). And this change has irritated the Christian community (certainly my Christian friends). But I think the majority of American Christians understand and cherish this detachment, relative to the historic oppressions they suffered.

You highligt the exact ambiguities I was refering to. US courts rule that you can't have monuments of the 10 commandments ourside of our courthouses but our political leaders ban gay marriage because of their religious beliefs.

Would a world peace solution involve global separation of church and state?
How can the USA side with Israel, when Israel is fundamentally no different than Iran (albeit the degree of atrocities are far different)?
Does a religious state really just stand for selective representation of the chosen? Doesn't this mean that by definition every religious state is unjust?

To the first, not necessarily. Just make the religious states unable to harm us.
To the second, you yourself mention the issue of degrees. Obviously Israel is not perfect. But it is the only western, civilized state in the middle east. And in addition, the jewish religion has been broken since 88 A.D. (I think that's the correct year), when their religious temple was destroyed by the romans. Since that I know of not a single jewish revolution/resistance/etc.
To the third, I don't think it just stands for a selective representation of the selected religious people. What it stands for is force in the hands of religion -- and as a consequence also law in the hands of religion. The result is definitely injustice (as for example against Galileo).

I don't want to comment on the rest of the issues in this thread at this point (three issues at once is enough for me).

Raaz Satik wrote:You highligt the exact ambiguities I was refering to. US courts rule that you can't have monuments of the 10 commandments ourside of our courthouses but our political leaders ban gay marriage because of their religious beliefs.

But the US Courts put it there in the first place... there should be something in the constitution that outlaws courts from doing such. I wonder what the president had to say? He probably didn't care and didn't bother or didn't know or didn't want to know.

Trilori wrote:But the US Courts put it there in the first place...

Did you notice that the resignation of one Justice (Sandra O'Connor) and the appointment of another (Sanuel Alito) has swung the majority in the supreme court (eg yesterdays abortion reversal). The appointment of just one person will shape many of the issues effecting the US for years to come.

Did the President consider every possible candidate for the job, or did he just consider candidates with similair beliefs as him? The US has a very right wing christian President in power, and he has appointed a like minded Justice. Since there was obviously religious bias involved in the decision, how much seperation does the US really have of religion and state? Interestingly the supreme court is currently 78% Christian (vs 76.5% population) including 56% Catholic (vs 25% of the population) and 22% Jewish (vs just 1.5% population)

One of the most powerful things the US President can do is appoint a Supreme Justice. I wonder in years to come when people look back at the legacy of President Bush what will come to mind? Iraq and 9/11 obviously but will it also be the two Justices he appointed?

ref: http://www.adherents.com/adh_sc.html

So they reversed the abortion decision? I have no idea what thats all about exactly. I've heard about it from time to time.

Yes I noticed everytime a justice goes and a new one comes in things really get a chance. If what you say is true 78% of the courts are christians, so are Americans... then all I have to say is "WTF...???" cuz IF thats true then why are they taking religion so seriously in government when its not supposed to be legally? the Constitution doesn't allow it.

Am I hearing that the constitution is no longer a basic legal basis? We no longer have freedom of speech, we no longer have freedom to bear arms (or do we?) What about the 5th Amendment? Its obvious the original constitution and its rattifications have been ignored for the last 50-75 years and there's something wrong.

What do other countries do when their governments intentionally ignore their version of the "constitution"? Revolt? Civil War? (we had one once), we as an American citizen have the right to start another civil war if we feel that there is Tyranny amoungst our government (which btw there is) and of course you know that the police and the National Guard will be the front lines I suppse unless they are defectors.

Infact! I'd love to SEE a state succeed from the union, I'm sure it can be done it would cause a lot of problems of course.

Trilori wrote:So they reversed the abortion decision?

They didn't reverse the Roe vs Wade decision but they did reverse a late term abortion/partial birth ban that was voted down several years ago. I think many people actually agree with them baning late term abortions but are concerned that this is just the first step in many that could eventually lead to them overturning Roe vs Wade.

Trilori wrote:we no longer have freedom to bear arms (or do we?)

What does a right to bear arms mean? Does it mean guns and armament? If so why can't I own an automatic weapon, or even a tank? Or does the right to bear arms mean that you have the right to arm and protect yourself from the goverment? In modern society what do you need to challenge the goverment? The legal system, not neccessarily a gun! I think the people in VT would wish we had less guns this week not more.

musashi wrote:

• Would a world peace solution involve global separation of church and state?
• How can the USA side with Israel, when Israel is fundamentally no different than Iran (albeit the degree of atrocities are far different)?
• Does a religious state really just stand for selective representation of the chosen? Doesn’t this mean that by definition every religious state is unjust?

1. No, it is not religion that creates problems, its mysticism in general. Communist Russia was just as mystical in their beliefs as most religions. It is the "intellectuals" with mysticism beliefs that create force. In atlas shrugged, many workers actually hated the socialist ideas, but it was the intellectuals of the nation that supported it. That was enough to put the country into a state of control by force.

2. USA can support one because they do not look at fundamentals, they look only at concretes. If one follows a religion that says enslaving man and killing the resistance to it is good; then, USA won't condemn them until they actually have an example of them doing so. USA will wait until they can catch them with their hand in the cookie char, and them condemn them while letting them have the cookies.

3. Yes.

EDIT TO ADD:
Yes, Emizzon, I am throwing Atlas Shrugged at people.

I too believe in seperation of church and state. Also, I believe (with my apologies to all the religious people out there), that humanity has outgrown the need for religion, that now they conflict with progress, whereas in the past they have promoted it. For example, the enlightenment in europe, or the even greater scientific progress of middle aged islam. But our technology and science has evolved to a point where it now conflicts with religous assumptions.

I enjoy science fiction, and one particular book I think applies here is Isaac Asimov's The Foundation In the first installment of the series, Hari Seldon, who created the foundation, tells the people of the foundation to create a religion to control the surrounding kingdoms, and protect itself, and therefore civilized humanity, from destruction, and after several decades of this, he tells them to change civilization yet again (this time to I believe some form of mercantilism). My point being, that different times require different systems of control, as religion is. And Religion is a system of mass control that works until you reach a population size that the earth has today, its just too much for everyone to believe one thing. Calling science and rationalism into existance.

The Role of religion is not eliminated, just religion is replaced by science, which will be replace by something even greater, possibly. But any strict belief without open mindedness to a new idea is usually negative, I believe in only the moderate execution (not killing, but carrying out) of any belief or ideology, including objectivism and individualism. Though objectivism is very rational for the moment, and follows the principles of scientific studies, it may in ten thousand years, or one hundred years (as i believe that history will repeat it self at exponentially smaller, or larger lengths) be replace by a different form of thinking and deduction. Also, I am not sure that believing in the fulfillment pure self interest is human, humane, or right (unless, perhaps it is made that the self interest of every human is to help his fellow man, while achieving his own goals, for example, giving back, or helping people once you have become successful), and that moderation must be used to carry out any belief, religion, or ideology. I am not saying I disagree with the corporate philosophy, just that you cant apply one idea to all of humanity, because people are different, as an example, you cant give every one the same medication, because it could give someone sideeffects, and even kill some, it all comes down to how humans are naturally, and how that is changed and influenced by how they are raised, individuality is what makes individualism both perfect, and imperfect. Thomas Aquinas (a religous man) was a Friar who once said "everything in moderation", though ironically he was so fat that he had to have a niche cut out of his dining table to accommodate his big belly.

I'm am going to a bit off topic here, I know, but I believe what is said needs to be said. About individualism, though, I just thought of something from my literature class a few days ago, where my teacher, who is a pacifist, quoted someone who once said that they would not kill a baby to save anyone in the world, or something of that sort. This I believe is interesting, and rather than actually choosing one or the other in this circumstance, I believe it is unethical for any human to make this decision. Getting back to the original topic at last, my teacher also told us of 3 types of arguement: logos, which is logical arguement, pathos, which is emotional agruement, and ethos, which is ethical arguement. Relgion relies mainly on pathos to prove ethos, which is why it works so well for small populations of devoted believers, while science relies on logos to prove ethos, which since we all have some basic ability to see reason and logic, works for an even larger population.

Your main flaw in what you said there is that science can replace religion. This is false. Sense religion is based on mysticism, or belief in something without a logical reason (like God), it can not be demolished by science. There will always be things that have yet to be explained as we discover the universe -- and there will always be a religious fool who will make up reasons for it.

You mentioned Thomas Aquinas... he put God within logic. He came up with 5 arguments to prove the existence of God (they have now be refuted of course). I will talk more on this guy later.

So there are two ways to prove you wrong: historically and reasonably.

Historically:
Every time that a society has accepted reasoning as an absolute, that society makes amazing achievements. It started with the father of logic: Aristotle. He made the use of reason and logic explicit. Now take a look at the achievements of his time. Most people then believed the Gods where like a soap opera and had little to do with philosophy. Look at the romans; they used technology in wars that were not seen again until after the dark age.

Now look at the dark age: everybody believed in the philosophy of mysticism and religion. You might say it is because religion was corrupt but if you read Atlas Shrugged, you would know that living the life that mysticism preached, means that corruption will always be at the backbone of the society. Just like it was in Russia, and just like it was in the medieval era. That is when Thomas Aquinas came along and said that everything must be reasonable, even God.

Thomas Aquinas was the start of the renaissance period which spawned many great thinkers and achievements. As Pieikoff put it, Thomas Aquinas basically said: "Its all right, you can think now." It eventually lead to the enlightenment period with the American revolution. Another highlight in history. Thomas Jefferson -- a advocate of reason, the one that made the separation of religion and state -- declared what the new nation held as its philosophy: that man has rights by nature. It was a study of nature, of philosophy (not science), a philosophy based on reasoning, that started this great nation.

Now religion is coming back into everyone's philosophy -- and the republicans and the liberals are fighting over which right to take away from the people next.

It is seen that, through history, when reason (not science), came to be the guiding philosophy of the masses and the intellectuals, human kind made great achievements and added years to their lives. Every time this happened, every time the philosophy of the intellectuals became more like Objectivism, societies rose up.

Reasonably
Religion and science are not mutually exclusive; they are not opposite, and are not two ways of observing reality. Philosophy is the study of reality. Religion is mysticism and based on faith; and used to explain reality. Science is the measurement of reality.

Here is an example: To recognize gravity is not a scientific issue but one of philosophy. Observing that mass falls towards the ground over time is observed while studying philosophy. Science is what tells us that it does this at 9.8m/s^2.

So to say that religion can now be replaced by science has two major flaws. One is accepting a view of reality other than the truth, as being good. The second thing is that science can exist within mysticism. It is a man made way of calculating reality, but not understanding it. That is philosophy.

Look at Scientology; it puts random numbers to random things. That is actually science, but unreasonable science. Mysticism incorporating science at its worse.

I have not yet read your whole post but I will (EDIT: I read whole post by the time I finished this one). First off, if religion is based on mysticism and science on reason, isn't it only reasonable that science replace religion. And I never said that religions replacement has to have its same qualities, it just has to act like a control system, but in a better way. Also, when you quote someone, you aren't saying that they are right in every aspect of existance, for example, Joseph Stalin once said "Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don't allow our enemies to have guns, why should we allow them to have ideas?", that makes sense no? but he also said "I trust no one, not even myself", and at least to me this sounds crazy. Thomas Aquinas was religous, and therefore his reason in that respect flawed, but that everything needs to be in moderation is not at all religous, because religion is often taken to extremes. Yes or No, do you agree that moderation is better than an extreme?

And religion can be any belief or understanding, and no mysticism is required, you can believe that science is the ultimate path to success, and that reason/logic and an open mind are the two virtuous qualities, that determine your success as a human being. As for Science existing within religion, of course it CAN, but that does not mean that it will or that it should, like I said before, if science gets incorporated to a religion based on reason, and some mysticism follows as well, is that not better then the worlds current religion? But again the problem with religion is that there are too many people in the world to all follow a "one size fits all" belief system, and so a technocracy, as much as it conflicts with capitalism, will form.

Although in this world of profiteering ceo's and executives, capitalism will mesh with this technocracy creating a market for technology, that will keep prices low, and improve society as a whole, now I don't fully believe this, it's just an idea, and I have other ideas on what would be the perfect government, perhaps a capitalism where people belong to corporations, not as slaves, but as they would in a country, and while the parents work, the children and old people who can't care for themselves, especially in an individualist society, are cared for by the corporation, until such a time as they can care for themselves (or die), at which point the corporation bills them as any capitalist would, and they work to pay the corporation off.

And lastly (I hope) I do not disagree that some nut will always try to rationalize the unexplained with unreasonable, and unproven explanations, and as long as people are rational, and science is in control, and people accept the current reasons for the explained, there is no problem, there isn't a problem with trying to explain the unexplained without proof. The problem arises when that unexplained phenomenon is explained, and that explanation proven true, and the fool who tried to explain it before's answer is different, and he is unwilling and too closed minded to accept the true explanation. In my opinion it is always best to have an open mind, to better accept truths that differ from preconceived notions. An open mind will allow you to see a bigger picture of the universe, and to find the solutions to problems better, because in focusing on one thing you may fail to see the solution to the problem if it is in another area, such as in diagnosis in medicine and even looking at the structure of a government and its people, fixing one part does not fix the the whole, to do that you must change everything. For example, taking America's government, you cant just say that if you eliminate corruption the problem will go away, you have to make sure that corruption can't recour, and that the system functions without corruption.

Airiek wrote:I have not yet read your whole post but I will. First off, if religion is based on mysticism and science on reason, isn't it only reasonable that science replace religion. And I never said that religions replacement has to have its same qualities, it just has to act like a control system, but in a better way. Also, when you quote someone, you aren't saying that they are right in every aspect of existance, for example, Joseph Stalin once said "Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don't allow our enemies to have guns, why should we allow them to have ideas?", that makes sense no? but he also said "I trust no one, not even myself", and at least to me this sounds crazy. Thomas Aquinas was religous, and therefore his reason in that respect flawed, but that everything needs to be in moderation is not at all religous, because religion is often taken to extremes. Yes or No, do you agree that moderation is better than an extreme?

You should read my post first. I answered most of this. I can not answer your question without a context. There ARE examples where an extreme is necessary. Here is an example:

The USA used to trade across the Atlantic sea but there were always Islamic Muslem pirates. For awhile we just payed them off. But eventually, Jefferson did the right thing (which was an extreme) and obliterated them. He took the US naval forces with the trade ships and made sure that they would NEVER try that again. It marked the attitude for the new nation. It was the USA (just recently formed) saying: "We will not let you have a chance to mess with us, ever".

And religion can be any belief or understanding, and no mysticism is required, you can believe that science is the ultimate path to success, and that reason/logic and an open mind are the two virtuous qualities, that determine your success as a human being. As for Science existing within religion, of course it CAN, but that does not mean that it will or that it should, like I said before, if science gets incorporated to a religion based on reason, and some mysticism follows as well, is that not better then the worlds current religion? But again the problem with religion is that there are too many people in the world to all follow a "one size fits all" belief system, and so a technocracy, as much as it conflicts with capitalism, will form.

Again, you should read my whole post. Religion is not religion without faith. Faith in something without proven reason for the faith. Religion generally also tries to explain reality. Science is for calculating reality, not explaining it. The subject of physics is as much philosophical as it is scientific.

there isn't a problem with trying to explain the unexplained without proof

AAAHHHH.
Oh no you didn't!
It will set people back for centuries. It will make people miserable. It will bring injustice. Look at the dark ages. Look at any age where ideas were not explained through reason. One can't even have an idea of what it is to be happy without reason.

That is bad bad bad. *Throws Atlas Shrugged at Airiek*, haha.
*catches breath*

AAHHHHH. Not knowing the proof is a reason to look for it (if it is attainable and useful), not a reason to make something up.

Read my full post. All your arguments are based on science being one way to control and explain reality. That is a false premise.

... you threw the book. I can't believe you threw the book. I was only joking... but no you went and threw the book.

I have my own views. Some might make Tolthar happy, some might now. So to save him from having his head explode (or implode) I'll just keep reading and making fun of him in the game.

anyway, by the time i did the post, i had read your whole post, so ignore that. although im getting the feeling you did not read my whole post as you ignored the main ideas in both of them.

Quote:

there isn't a problem with trying to explain the unexplained without proof
AAAHHHH.
Oh no you didn't!
It will set people back for centuries. It will make people miserable. It will bring injustice. Look at the dark ages. Look at any age where ideas were not explained through reason. One can't even have an idea of what it is to be happy without reason.

There isn't a direct problem, and how can something, for example, belieft in a geocentric solar system lead to people being miserable? In no way can it. Use examples if you want to try to convince me, dont just say it. And as for dark ages, or any kind of oppression by religion, that is caused not entirely by lack of reason, but the way that human greed corrupts the core principles of religion, and (this is getting annoying as i see you arent even paying attention to what I am saying) causes people to be miserable, while indirectly the unexplained assumptions of religion MAY be responsible in some cases, such as God stating the sins, and heaven and hell and so on... And the church misinterpreting the meaning of sin and starting an inquisition, this is caused by closed mindedness, which you seem to be acting like right now, and closed mindedness is ignorance, but while ignorance in some cases can be bliss, such as a rich child raised ignorant of the suffering in the world, sleeping soundly and happily, closed mindedness is ignorance that causes pain and suffering, while ignorance through lack of knowledge, like I said before, can be peaceful for the individual, though rarely the group.

Your opinion of an extreme such as killing the islamic pirates is your opinion. Which tells me that you define the elimination of PIRATES an extreme, it is justified, and it is not an extreme, torturing, mass genocide, and the murder of innocent islamic civilians would be extreme, but in this case the us did the minimum of what was necessary, please realize that extremes are also dependant on point of view, and that even from your point of view, that what the US did is not an extreme, you just made the mistake of thinking so. A debatable extreme was the dropping of the only two nuclear bombs ever detonated offensivly on a civilion population by the US on hiroshima and nagasaki, THIS in my opinion was an extreme, and there is great debate on whether it was justified or wrong to do it to stop the war. But personally I dont want to get into that anyway.

(For all the viewers of this post, Airiek said he took back some of the things said in this post, so I'm just answering the ones he did not)

Your opinion of an extreme such as killing the islamic pirates is your opinion. Which tells me that you define the elimination of PIRATES an extreme, it is justified, and it is not an extreme, torturing, mass genocide, and the murder of innocent islamic civilians would be extreme, but in this case the us did the minimum of what was necessary, please realize that extremes are also dependant on point of view, and that even from your point of view, that what the US did is not an extreme, you just made the mistake of thinking so. A debatable extreme was the dropping of the only two nuclear bombs ever detonated offensivly on a civilion population by the US on hiroshima and nagasaki, THIS in my opinion was an extreme, and there is great debate on whether it was justified or wrong to do it to stop the war. But personally I dont want to get into that anyway.

You seem to be saying that if it is the right thing to do, then it is not an extreme. If that is what you mean, then I agree the extreme is always bad.

Mmm...

A faith based on reason can still hold extremes, as can a faith based on well... faith (Christian, Catholic, Pagan, Muslim, Hindu, Janism, etc.)
Although reason dictates that extremes are usually unreasonable when moderate options present themselves, it's rather hard to expect a religion of reason to solve the problems a religion of mysticism can cause. IT's beneficial yes, but not everyone is intelligent or possesses the needed amount of common sense to function properly in such a society so extreme actions will always be their unless their is a way to cease such extreme actions which would in itself be considered an extreme. I think it all hinges on whose perspective, a religion of Science/Reason would in itself be viewed as extreme by some. I think humanity itself would need to evolve in some way for such to be possible.

(Please correct me if I'm wrong with examples, lins to info about how/why I'm wrong. I like to learn from debates rather than continue with an incorrect idea of things.)

I believe that when we talk about religion here, we are talking about blind faith religions. A religion of reason, I believe, is a contraction. When I say religion, at least, I mean a belief based in mysticism, not reason.

What some call extreme is not always extreme. My example with jefferson vs the pirates -- many would of thought that that was an extreme, but it was not based on reason. It was quite reasonable for what jefferson did. But some religion that believes, "love your brother, even after he sticks a knife up your pooper", would think (and wrongly so) that it was an extreme.

I'm having trouble understanding how a Religion based on reason can exist. Isn't that just a type of philosphy at that point?

For me, my basic differentiation between what is religion and reason is this:

Why does gravity exist?

Religion: Because "God" made it.

Reason: Gravity is a natural phenomenon, an invisible force that's either pushing us or pulling us in a certain direction.

Scientific Reason: All matter has mass, all mass has some degree of a magnetic field, which we call gravity. The more mass, the more gravity, the greater the attraction and thus we experience gravity on earth because it is much larger in relation to us. (get a science teacher to explain it better.)

Anyway, I usually use the example "A child turns to his dad and asks, 'Why does lightning happen?'" and give the two major possible response. Usually this lets whomever know, I feel relgion is made up to explain the (what was once) unexplainable.

Going into a problem head on with the mentality "God has a plan." gets us nowhere, it may even hurt us. Going into a problem with abilty to think for ones self and understand that the answers may or may not be found, but to not apply a "catch-all' to the unexplained would prove to be better for a person, a group or even an entire world. By admiting a mistake, you learn from it and you've moved further ahead then just standing there waiting for someone(thing) else to give you the answer.

*looks up* What the hell was I trying to say. Screw it, I typed it, you read it.

I am sort of saying if it is the right thing to do it is not an extreme. Put simply what I am actually saying is when you need to do something, usually offensively, and you do the minimum damage to your enemy necessary, it is not an extreme, Jefferson did the minimum that was necessary, and did not do less or more, which like I said before would have been to harm innocent people or commit genocide.

by the way what does anyone think of the shakespeare quotes beneath my sig

Emizzon wrote:Why does gravity exist?

This is a wrong question. It's just as wrong to ask why universe exists or have you stopped beating your wife.

Gravity is a matter of reality, there is no why.