why so much hate towards us religious folks?

^ I love fergs.

Not that I'm gay.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Perhaps I should have worded my question differently. I'm not going to argue that chimps aren't aggressive (as you've described). But their success as a species doesn't rest entirely on their innate aggressive behavior. Within their tribe, chimps don't attack one another, they do the opposite - they care for one another, another innate behavior that without they wouldn't be around. We share the same genetic trait that stems from our mammalian brain (do me a favour and look it up). The basic behavior to protect and care for our young is not learned, it's built in. Ask any mother if she had to learn that she needs to care for her newborn. Restating my position: our sense of morality (caring towards one another) is biological and without it, we wouldn't be here. At no point did I claim it was the only reason we have survived, or that it is mutually exclusive from any other traits.

Sorry, but the research says they exist together:

linky: http://www.newstatesman.com/200511210043

learned from where?

caring, kindness, selflessness, altruistic… I can use any of those words you like, my argument remains the same.

Reptiles don't care for their young because they don't have the mammalian layer in their brain that allows them to do so. Look it up. The number of young produced has nothing to do with the ability to care for those young.

There are many many more evolved traits than just procreation and aggression. Psychologists and biologists are doing just this - tracing behaviors and traits back to their roots.

You disagreed with my assertion that acts of kindness (basic morality) are biologically innate in our species, and instead claim that morality is a learned behavior by arguing that chimps kill each other, aggression and kindness can't exist together as traits, and a mother tending to her young isn't an act of kindness. You agreed that morality doesn't come from the bible.

lumberjacks and cowboys? have fun :) (are there going to be any chicks?). I went on a cd shopping spree.
Is anyone else reading this?

Man, I am drunk as fuck, and I was hoping I wasn't going to have to come back to this. I really hope that this warrants its own thread, as this is an incredibly interesting topic, but I don't feel that it is compatible with the religious overtones of this thread. Begin a new thread with my last comments in mind, because I don't think anyone is reading this aside from you and me. And for the record, yes, there are a few chicks, who are pissed that I am putting the internet before their desires. I hope to hear from this train of thought sometime tomorrow after paintball. I really think this thread deserves its own train of thought. Just for the record, I'm not completely disagreeing with your frame of thought, I just think mine offers a better point of view. Again, I've just got back from a beer garden, and don't forget the fact that I'm piss drunk.

Anyway, I have obligations to fulfill. I hope I hear from these ideas sometime soon.

would you feel the same way if it was a vote that disallowed blacks to drive?

I wouldn't stand for that kind of vote.

I'm picking at technicalities, and nothing more.

_mar[HTML_REMOVED]#8901;riage[HTML_REMOVED]#8194; [HTML_REMOVED]#8194;/[HTML_REMOVED]#712;m[HTML_REMOVED]#230;r[HTML_REMOVED]#618;d[HTML_REMOVED]#658;/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mar-ij] Show IPA Pronunciation

[HTML_REMOVED]#8211;noun 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. _

Can't it not be called something else if it isn't between a man and a woman? Why is there such a push to change this meaning?

To a lot of people it has the appearance of an individual or group pushing for justified/inherent rights, getting that, and then pushing farther.

Or perhaps it has to do with legal rights. If so, then the legal definition would have to be changed. If the term "man and woman" were to be changed to "man and man, man and woman, or woman and woman", what's going to stop the change of the other parts of the definition? How about "a man and a woman and a woman"? Where does it end - when the law books triple in size?

The next thing you know we'll have a guy suing to enter the Miss Universe contest, because he believes it is his right to do so. Or perhaps we could have men race in the women's 100 metres at the Olympics.

I have a hard time believing that everyone else made the decision for you, you're too much of a thinker for that.

How many people in the world have access to education and scientific discoveries out there vs. the number of people in the world who wonder why we're here (and came up with the idea of a god to answer that question)?

I bet it's very disproportionate, and a very significant point to consider when using the "90[HTML_REMOVED]#37; of the world believes in some sort of deity" argument. We're still waiting for that 90% to come up with actual proof that their god exists.

My point was that if 90% of the people in the world believe that there is a supreme being, it is irrational to discount that and side with atheism because there is no "scientific" proof of a supreme being.

As for education, take an educated and scientific society such as Romania. 90% of the population is religious.

Millions of people have a firm belief, and/or a "relationship" with God. Do you question their ability to reason, or the mental sanity? Like I've previously stated (at least I think I have), how could you scientifically prove this? It's like me asking for you to right here and now provide incontrovertable, tangible proof that you love your mother, and that your love is greater than your brother. When your girlfriend says to you "I love you", how can you ever be really sure that she is telling the truth. Does she provide scientific data, or do make your judgement on a belief?

So yes, if you change any significant part of our environment, we would fail.

But you do not have to change a significant part for us to fail - you'd only have to make the slightest change to the smallest part. Just look at the properties of water.

The more science discovers, the more we learn how much more complex things are. A couple thousand years ago, people looked around and though "wow, there's a lot of dirt around here. how did it all get here?". Now we have spent a bazillion hours of people and computer time doing something relatively simple - mapping the human genome - and we find that the complexity is incredible, yet the perfection of the complexity is even more incredible. The more we learn, the more complexity we see, and with increased complexity comes decreased probability of the chance of us just happening to come into existance.

I'm not saying with certainty that there is or there isn't a supreme being or creator or "God". What I am saying is that the more I learn the more I am left in the middle and that it is hard to fathom the existance of a supreme being but it is also very hard to believe in the extreme randomness of chance that led to our existance.

when i first got on this here holy board the first thing i noticed was how cool and friendly most of you are. yes PB, you too are a pretty cool kid! i have to admit, of all the sports/hobbies i've been into you guys are some of the nicest i have come across. the willingness to show newbs around the trails and readiness to help anyone out including non bikers. i mean some of you would waste an hour or so waiting for the newb to get off his bike and roll it over every curb, root, rock just to show him the trails.

some of the conversations here were about how you wish the world was less full of shit and you all kinda wanted the world to be better. kinda like….can't we all just get along! obviously in general most people want peace and less shit. anyway i was shocked with most of you as i guess i always thought the ppl behind the full faces and goggles were bad asses who would run over a newb on a-line then get off and stab them and leave them to die.

but why is it when a conversation about religion starts up there is so much anger and hate? particularly towards christians.

Hi there - while I agree with most of what you write I have to inform you that on the "old" board there were Mass Debates every Tuesday - and they were sometimes really ugly. So all in all nothing has really changed imho, I just try to stay out of the stuff that has already been discussed to pieces.

mar[HTML_REMOVED]#8901;riage[HTML_REMOVED]#8194; [HTML_REMOVED]#8194;/[HTML_REMOVED]#712;m

good point, but "voting" used to be described as soemthing white men did, and "human" used to not include native americans

This.

If we always just looked at the definitions of things and tried to stick to them, we would never make any progress. For one, marriage did not begin as a union between one man and one woman, but rather one man and many women. Interracial marriage was not always acceptable by the common definition of marriage either. Arranged marriages were once common and still are in some places, but would not be acceptable in our society. To suggest that marriage is some static, unchanging institution is ludicrous.

I cant help but to notice how this kind of topic is on the rise around the world in forums, youtube and internet in general. The anti Organized Religion movement seems to be on the rise and for obvious reasons. It would appear that there is a battle going on and it is intensifying.

Wouldn't it be interesting if OR was actually one of the ways the ruler of the underworld applies his agenda with confusion and lies.

I think this ongoing battle will continue to intensify turning mankind on itself as it has done for so long now already.

I believe religion as we know it is on its way out and it will be in our life time. As world government puts an end to it in attempt to unify and bring about world wide peace. The government has had its eye on religions wealth for a while now. Perhaps they will try to tax it out of existence one day.

i know kinda out there huh

_mar[HTML_REMOVED]#8901;riage[HTML_REMOVED]#8194; [HTML_REMOVED]#8194;/[HTML_REMOVED]#712;m[HTML_REMOVED]#230;r[HTML_REMOVED]#618;d[HTML_REMOVED]#658;/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mar-ij] Show IPA Pronunciation

[HTML_REMOVED]#8211;noun 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. _

Marriage or wedlock is an interpersonal relationship (usually intimate and sexual) with governmental, social, or religious recognition. It is often created by a contract or through civil processes. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution.

Hey look, I have a definition that fits my argument too! No changing of definitions required, we just need to open a different dictionary: crisis averted!

I am totally fine with a religion not wanting to bless a same-sex marriage in their church/mosque etc. It's their religion, and they can decide that if they want.

Civil marriage is the issue here for me, and since its legality is determine by the government, we're stuck with a vote.

The next thing you know we'll have a guy suing to enter the Miss Universe contest, because he believes it is his right to do so. Or perhaps we could have men race in the women's 100 metres at the Olympics.

I wouldn't stand for that kind of vote, I'm just picking holes in your technicalities.

The question being asked warrants some self-reflection on behalf of the person asking: why so much hate directed by religion at non-believers, or people of different faiths, creeds or points of view? History past and present is rife with war and acts of violence perpetrated in the name of the Prince of Peace. Until the ultimate irony of using force to get people to obey the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is addressed, then religion has no credibility with me, let alone the privilege of asking me to take things on faith.

I am not going to dodge your question by responding with another question. I will tell you flat-out what my issue with religion is (and fundamentalism in particular). It's the notion of dominonism or dominion theology; the idea that God gave "man" dominion over all things, and the whole Rapture/End Time theology, which when combined with rapacious free market capitalism, and the mixing of Church and State, creates an out-of-control, self-fulfilling prophecy that shows reckless disregard for everyone else on Earth who may not share those beliefs.

We can log as much as we want, because God granted us Dominion over all things. We can mine, develop, fish, hunt, drive, burn oil, dig coal - it's a free market, and it's God's will that we use the Earth. Is it getting warmer? Well, that's what it said in the prophecy of Revelation. Did I say self-fulfilling? Is it an opportunity to get rich without giving anything back? Sounds perfect. No wonder evangelicals and capitalism get along so well.

Well, you know what? That is a direct threat on my life, well-being and the peace and comfort of my family. I think we were meant to live in harmony with nature, not to exploit it because it's God's Will, or that Jesus is coming to rescue us from a trash-heap of our own making. That's a cop-out, to be honest. Sustainability should be a commandment, right up there with coveting ass.

You asked, so there you go.

didnt read the whole thread but as far as religion is concerned …whatever blows yer dress up is fine by me

but IMO religion is just a way to manipulate people

actualy so is money

i think that religion is a very beautiful thing and generally is all about love and treating one another with kindness. but when people get on my case because i don't subscribe to the same beliefs that they do, i can understand why people occasionally antagonize religious people.

I had to think a lot of this over last night before posting.

Basically it all comes to the same conclusion, the pushiness is our downfall. The few bad apples that dragged our name through the mud. The wrong interpretation of the bible that has caused us to go and "force" our beliefs towards others. The self righteous attitudes.

Also it sounds like a lot of you associate the door to door guys saying you'll go to hell (J.W.) with all Christians. I guess what I'm saying is I still feel you guys here are a good group of guys who will still take the time to go out of your way to show a newb the trails or what not. But what I am asking is that you not stereotype all Christians. You all say that it's cool with whatever we want to believe so let's leave it at that. Don't judge us based on a few bad apples and become hypocrites yourselves. There are many good non pushy Christians out there. If they push then fine, I too can understand and have been in that situation.

But, gerewh0re, I think the bible can apply to today. But too many chose not to be open minded about it. They've already made up their mind that there is no God or that the bible is silly so whatever they read, they won't even open their eyes to see if it applies to life in general. I think that was what gimp pimp was getting at with the "love they neighbors" thing. The way I see it is that if you don't believe then of course the bible won't be useful to you unless the verse is obvious as in love they neighbor. Why read a book that is for believers of God if you don't believe? I can't explain it but I think you know what I mean?

While I admit there are parts in the bible that make no sense to me, there are also sections like Psalms that I find I can apply to everyday life. Give it a read if you want and I'm sure you might feel the same way about it as I do as most are somewhat obvious but interesting to read. But that's why I like them I guess. The parts I don't understand….well that's why I go to church. That's what the sermons are for.

Ok time to go ride my bike. uhm….please don't throw stones at me if you see me riding and I'll promise not to preach to you!

My point was that if 90% of the people in the world believe that there is a supreme being, it is irrational to discount that and side with atheism because there is no "scientific" proof of a supreme being.

So you think I'm more irrational for believing that 90% of the population is simply wrong than some Africans who believe in Obatala, the god who was supposed to build the earth given a set of blueprints, some mud, a chain and five toed chicken (but didn't because he got drunk, so his brother did instead)?

I really don't care what people believe until they start to act on those beliefs in a way that may harm me or others. It's at this point I'm going to start throwing around accusations of being delusional and irrational.

As a side note, how many Christians in the audience just laughed and thought how ridiculous the god Obatala sounds, and simply dismiss the idea that Obatala exists? Your atheistic feelings about Obatala are exactly the same as my atheistic feelings to your Christian god.

I'd like to know how many fewer people would be religious (Judeo-Christian) if there had never been the notion of hell.

As for education, take an educated and scientific society such as Romania. 90% of the population is religious.

There are dozens of studies that show an indisputable correlation between education and atheism.

Millions of people have a firm belief, and/or a "relationship" with God. Do you question their ability to reason, or the mental sanity?

The instant anyone kills or refuse life saving blood transfusions for their child because they have a religious reason to do so, yes, I question their ability to reason and their mental sanity.

But you do not have to change a significant part for us to fail - you'd only have to make the slightest change to the smallest part. Just look at the properties of water.

The more science discovers, the more we learn how much more complex things are. A couple thousand years ago, people looked around and though "wow, there's a lot of dirt around here. how did it all get here?". Now we have spent a bazillion hours of people and computer time doing something relatively simple - mapping the human genome - and we find that the complexity is incredible, yet the perfection of the complexity is even more incredible. The more we learn, the more complexity we see, and with increased complexity comes decreased probability of the chance of us just happening to come into existance.

May I recommend another book? Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Daniel Dennett. Are you about to pull the blind watchmaker on me? The tiny systems, like dna, have had millions of years to develop into amazingly complex tidy little machines. We humans on the other hand are far less than a perfect organism.

I'm not saying with certainty that there is or there isn't a supreme being or creator or "God". What I am saying is that the more I learn the more I am left in the middle and that it is hard to fathom the existance of a supreme being but it is also very hard to believe in the extreme randomness of chance that led to our existance.

:) So what you're saying is…. you're a fence sitter!

For me, the idea of some god behind a curtain is preposterous. Especially a god who is so vain that he requires his subjects to worship him, and if they don't, they be cast to eternal damnation. Or a god that requires his subjects to kill all who believe in other gods. I could on and on and on…

The extreme chance and randomness is fascinating to me. It begs exploration and discovery and scientific pursuit. Anyone who isn't blown away by what we observe is missing out. Why stop looking and just attribute it all to some god? What a waste.