The fraudulent and corrupt government of George W Bush put a restraint on stem-cell research. Why? Purely religiously-motivated.

Stem-cell research hold a great deal of promise to the alleviation of a great many diseases. Shall I go on again?

huxley:

The fraudulent and corrupt government of George W Bush put a restraint on stem-cell research. Why? Purely religiously-motivated.

Stem-cell research hold a great deal of promise to the alleviation of a great many diseases. Shall I go on again?

Really?
That is false . . . and you know it. The problem with stem cell research (i support it though) is not down to religion at all even though liberals and athiests like you with a bone to grind like to trumpet it as the major factor.

The problems are:
1. There are no current checks and balances to regulate stem cell research.
2. Where do you get the stem cells from? While most researchers initially wanted to use fetuses, there has been a big shift to harvesting adult stem cells.
3. The South Korea stem cell fraud issue also rocked an industry still in its infancy.
4. Where is the boundary to stem cell research? Are we going to one day start cloning humans?

Those are the problems researchers face in the US . . . believe me if it were motivated by religion Bush would have had a serious fight on his hands.

In some parts of the world, official oaths are taken on the holy books although one may not subsribe to the religions of the book. In think in some courts in the US, defendents, plaintives and witness still have to swear an oath by the bible. This is private religion intruding into public space.

And of course, all the religious-inspire laws, outlawing oral and anal sex. People have been prosecuted (and persecuted) who have engaged in acts of oral and anal sex.

Huxley and David.

You're still talking about specifics. That's not what people like Grayling are concerned with. They're looking at the bigger picture.
They're saying if it weren't for religion, mankind would be a different species and they think that it would be a better one.

The easiest way I can think of illustrating the idea is to look at John Lennon's "Imagine".

"Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one "

Bastage:

Huxley and David.

You're still talking about specifics. That's not what people like Grayling are concerned with. They're looking at the bigger picture.
They're saying if it weren't for religion, mankind would be a different species and they think that it would be a better one.

The easiest way I can think of illustrate the idea is to look at John Lennon's "Imagine".

"Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one "

You are right and I love this Lennon song too. Some people just cannot see the forest, so they have to be shown the trees individually.

huxley:

And of course, all the religious-inspire laws, outlawing oral and anal sex. People have been prosecuted (and persecuted) who have engaged in acts of oral and anal sex.

Odd . . . adultery is against the law in South Korea . . . it isnt a religious country by any stretch.

Besides in which country is oral and anal sex against the law!  

Are we just stumbling from the ridiculous to the insane now?

huxley:

In some parts of the world, official oaths are taken on the holy books although one may not subsribe to the religions of the book. In think in some courts in the US, defendents, plaintives and witness still have to swear an oath by the bible. This is private religion intruding into public space.

Article six of the US. Constitution, titled: "Debts, Supremacy, Oaths" states:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Which renders your first complaint utterly irrelevant.

In US courtrooms . . . non religious people are ALLOWED to simply raise their hands and make a non-religious affirmation . . .

Again rendering your complaint irrelevant.

Bastage:

Huxley and David.

You're still talking about specifics. That's not what people like Grayling are concerned with. They're looking at the bigger picture.
They're saying if it weren't for religion, mankind would be a different species and they think that it would be a better one.

What is this hypothetical "big picture" AC Grayling is looking at?

China, with no official religion, is a perfect example of what the UK could have been without organized religion of any kind . . . is it any better than the UK or US really?

For two whole pages . . . secularists still cannot tell us what exactly it is about christianity that infringes on their freedom beyond this mythical "big picture"?

David.
You're starting to sound shallow,

As I've explained to you time and time again, everything we are as a race has been dictated by Christianity. Go over to Syria, Jordan or where-ever and everything they are has been dictated by their belief in Islam. Religion has shaped society and shaped the human race.

Do you understand?

Bastage:

David.
You're starting to sound shallow,

As I've explained to you time and time again, everything we are as a race has been dictated by Christianity. Go over to Syria, Jordan or where-ever and everything they are has been dictated by their belief in Islam. Religion has shaped society and shaped the human race.

Do you understand?

How Bastage? Dont level a charge without substantiating it. It bores me to tears . . . i get tons of "oh you're shallow" from athiests or agnostics and YET i dont get any concrete alternative from them.

Religion has shaped society true . . . but i ask again . . . religion did NOT shape China, Japan, South Korea. So what is special about these countries that the UK could have been if not for religion?

You keep repeating this "religion shaped society" mantra but i continue to ask . . . what is IT about religion shaping society that is so bad? How has religion/christianity negatively affected countries like the US, UK, Norway, Italy, Spain, Switzerland?

Isnt it ridiculously funny that there are more willing immigrants to these countries shaped by christianity than to godless nations?

I repeat my question again . . . what is it with christianity that you so abhor?

I have consistently given factual rebuttals, mentioned nations both shaped by religion and not to make comparisons. You keep talking about a mythical "big picture" that you can't explain and i'm the shallow one?

Bastage:

David.
You're starting to sound shallow,

As I've explained to you time and time again, everything we are as a race has been dictated by Christianity. Go over to Syria, Jordan or where-ever and everything they are has been dictated by their belief in Islam. Religion has shaped society and shaped the human race.

Do you understand?

To use the term "explain" is a very gross overstatement. Repeating a claim over and over and over again is not the same as "explaining" it.

Some of you need a dictionary when you post.

my take on Lennon's poem.

Bastage:

"Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Is the imagination of heaven or hell a problem for athiests or agnostics? Why is my private belief a problem to Lennon?
Are there countries on earth that only grant citizenships or rights to people who believe in the afterlife?

Bastage:

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

What has countries to do with religion? So without religion there'd be worldwide peace? Tell that to the communists in Russia, Hitler's Germany and Kim Jung Il's North Korea.

Bastage:

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

There is no religion in the Korea's and they are as divided as anything.
Is religion the problem between China and Taiwan?

Bastage:

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

So religion is the author of greed? Is that why all the Chinese people are the most ungreedy citizens in the world? What of the Russian oil barons?

Bastage:

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one "

You're not a dreamer Lennon, you're simply a liar.

davidylan:

Odd . . . adultery is against the law in South Korea . . . it isnt a religious country by any stretch.

Besides in which country is oral and anal sex against the law!  

Are we just stumbling from the ridiculous to the insane now?

Article six of the US. Constitution, titled: "Debts, Supremacy, Oaths" states:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Which renders your first complaint utterly irrelevant.

In US courtrooms . . . non religious people are ALLOWED to simply raise their hands and make a non-religious affirmation . . .

Again rendering your complaint irrelevant.

In many states in the US, oral and anal sex are prohibited, although some states are now repealling these law.  The laws are a legacy of the American Christian puritanical past.  Just do a google search to check it out.

Until recently, nearly all swearing in US courts was done on the bible. And although the Constitutions forbids test on religions grounds some US states have local legislation requiring such test.  I shall get the details in a moment.

religion did NOT shape China, Japan, South Korea.

Totally and utterly false. They were shaped by their gods just as much as anyone else. I have books and books on the subject of the Far Eastern religions.

I have consistently given factual rebuttals, mentioned nations both shaped by religion and not to make comparisons. You keep talking about a mythical "big picture" that you can't explain and i'm the shallow one?

It's not a "mythical big picture" and I have to agree with Huxley that you aren't seeing the woods for the trees.

what is IT about religion shaping society that is so bad? How has religion/christianity negatively affected countries like the US, UK, Norway, Italy, Spain, Switzerland?

I have to keep repeating myself, yet still I don't think you're going to understand.
EVERY negative is a result of religion. EVERY positive is a result of religion. Mankind was shaped by religion. When he creates negatives and positives, he does so as a result of his creation by religion.
The human attitude is a creation of religion.

What has countries to do with religion?

Palestine?

Bastage:

Totally and utterly false. They were shaped by their gods just as much as anyone else. I have books and books on the subject of the Far Eastern religions.

Having books is not the same as reading or understanding them. Which God's shaped China or Japan?
Are there laws a result of religious interference?

Bastage:

It's not a "mythical big picture" and I have to agree with Huxley that you aren't seeing the woods for the trees.

that is a smokescreen for his inability to say anything beyond the nebulous.

Bastage:

I have to keep repeating myself, yet still I don't think you're going to understand.
EVERY negative is a result of religion. [/b]EVERY[/b] positive is a result of religion. Mankind was shaped by religion. When he creates negatives and positives, he does so as a result of his creation by religion.
The human attitude is a creation of religion.

Every negative is a result of religion . . . we've heard this since yesterday . . . can you substantiate it?
If every negative is a result of religion why do you find it difficult to name just one?

huxley:

In many states in the US, oral and anal sex are prohibited, although some states are now repealling these law. The laws are a legacy of the American Christian puritanical past. Just do a google search to check it out.

Until recently, nearly all swearing in US courts was done on the bible. And although the Constitutions forbids test on religions grounds some US states have local legislation requiring such test. I shall get the details in a moment.

Those legacies cannot be denied but it is clear that non-religious americans have their full rights intact.

Scientists today have discovered that the Y chromosome in sperm has 2.8 percent less genetic material than the X chromosome in the same sperm specimen. Researchers were able to sift sperm to produce samples in which 85 percent of the cells had an X chromosome. In fact, the X chromosome is five times larger than the Y chromosome, which means that females existed for generations without males. To get the Y chromosome out of an X chromosome, you lose one of your points, thus the chromosome is defected, which is why a man has the same components on his body, that the woman does. For example, the breast and nipples, however men don’t breastfeed. Men are a genetic defect of women. A woman not only breastfeeds her children, but she nurtures the whole world with her wisdom.
Scroll 1:99-104

The Y chromosome comes from female scientists, as Ninti, known as Mother Ninti or Nunet, who experimented with the side of an X chromosome maiming it by removing 2.8 percent of X chromosomes. This resulted in a maimed lower right stem, giving the appearance of a Y, which produces less genetic materials, resulting in a Y chromosome, called chromosomal manipulation, a well known experiment today.

Which God's shaped China or Japan?

Go read up about Shintoism and Taoism. Or Confusionism. Or Buddhism. Then what about Islam and Christianity? Believe it or not, there are more Christians in China than in any country in Europe!!! That's without even mentioning the hundreds of traditional religions that existed out there.

Every negative is a result of religion . . . we've heard this since yesterday . . . can you substantiate it?
If every negative is a result of religion why do you find it difficult to name just one?

You punch someone in the face. You tell a lie. You steal something. You're rude about someone. You hate something. You covet something. You boast. Any negative whatsoever.

EVERYTHING IS A RESULT OF RELIGION. IT HAS MADE US WHO WE ARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WHAT'S SO FUCKING HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT STATEMENT?

Look at all the things that you have learned. You have learned more than the average Muslim Imam (leader) as an Ansaar (aider). You know more about the Koran, the hadith, and history. And, you know more about the Bible than the average Christian. You know more about the Torah than the average pale or black Jew, more about 120 degrees than a 5% or black Muslim. Now you no longer have an interest in any of these so-called holy books and self righteous leaders.

You have gone to something higher. You will be able to tell people all that you have learned, everything about religion. You will become a master teacher, as myself.

Does God Need Religion? by Dr. Malachi Z. York

Bastage:

Go read up about Shintoism and Taoism. Or Confusionism. Or Buddhism. Then what about Islam and Christianity? Believe it or not, there are more Christians in China than in any country in Europe!!! That's without even mentioning the hundreds of traditional religions that existed out there.

Still doesnt prove that religion shaped China. China has 1/6th of the world's population, stands to reason that the population of underground christians there (under persecution by the government) are more than those in Europe.

You talk about shintoism or taoism . . . ok did Shango or Ifa religion shape Nigeria?

Bastage:

You punch someone in the face. You tell a lie. You steal something. You're rude about someone. You hate something. You covet something. You boast. Any negative whatsoever.

EVERYTHING IS A RESULT OF RELIGION. IT HAS MADE US WHO WE ARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WHAT'S SO FUCKING HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT STATEMENT?

What's so hard to understand?

Because the very examples of negatives you point to here are baseless . . .
punching someone in the face - is a result of christianity?
Lying is because of christianity?
Being rude is because christianity taught you to?
Areligious societies are without hate?
Covetousness and boasting are all symptoms of religion?

How myopic and false can you get? See the reason why i cant get you now?

See the reason why i can't get you now?

I'll tell you why you don't get it.
You complained earlier that you've often been accused of being shallow. Well, in this instance I can see that those accusers had a point.

All you can bring into this thread are the sheer trivialities of your own religion which leaves you with no understanding of the human condition. That shallowness is born out of a need to constantly defend Christianity whatever the subject matter - even when, as in this thread, Christianity isn't really the issue. Religion is.

Sorry. But you've bored the shit out of me and I've honestly felt like I've been talking to a retard. Maybe I expected too much from you.

Because the very examples of negatives you point to here are baseless . . .
punching someone in the face - is a result of christianity?
Lying is because of christianity?
Being rude is because christianity taught you to?
Areligious societies are without hate?
Covetousness and boasting are all symptoms of religion?

How many times do you need me to repeat myself, dipshit?
EVERYTHING is a symptom of religion.
It's not a question of the fucking blame game!!!!
It's about morality!!!!

The human basis of morality is formed on religion. What the atheists are saying is that we would have a better form of morality if there was no religion. They're saying that the moral system is flawed. Change the basis of morality and you change the whole of mankind. You change everything.

Bastage:

I'll tell you why you don't get it.
You complained earlier that you've often been accused of being shallow. Well, in this instance I can see that those accusers had a point.

All you can bring into this thread are the sheer trivialities of your own religion which leaves you with no understanding of the human condition. That shallowness is born out of a need to constantly defend Christianity whatever the subject matter - even when, as in this thread, Christianity isn't really the issue. Religion is.

Sorry. But you've bored the shit out of me and I've honestly felt like I've been talking to a retard. Maybe I expected too much from you.

Bastage, not new. When you people run into a brickwall you resort to personal abuse.

Sheer trivialities of what? you gave laughable examples and i asked salient questions and you suddenly morph into a frothing, outraged soul?

Oh yeah and i'm the "shallow" one.

Bastage:

How many times do you need me to repeat myself, dipshit?
EVERYTHING is a symptom of religion.
It's not a question of the fucking blame game!!!!
It's about morality!!!!

[size=13pt]Dear sir . . . and can you not give us JUST ONE FREAKING EXAMPLE out of this mysterious "everything"?[/size]

Bastage:

The human basis of morality is formed on religion. What the atheists are saying is that we would have a better form of morality if there was no religion. They're saying that the moral system is flawed. Change the basis of morality and you change the whole of mankind. You change everything.

That is bullshit! Unless you claim that ALL religions teach the same morals . . . what religion influenced the morals in China or Taiwan? Are they the same morals that influenced Nazi Germany, Communist Russia or the christian UK?

What the athiests are saying is that they are just a bunch of noise makers who just want christianity to disappear.

Bastage:

The human basis of morality is formed on religion. What the atheists are saying is that we would have a better form of morality if there was no religion. They're saying that the moral system is flawed. Change the basis of morality and you change the whole of mankind. You change everything.

arent you all tired of this worn out nonsense?

What are the morals that would have been better had we not been involved with religion?

200yrs ago our Nigerian ancestors didnt have any foreign religion . . . what morals did they have and were they any better than ours today?

Can you people reason beyond just foaming in the mouth for once? Sheesh!

Long long before christianity came . . . our ancestors killed twins, sacrificed virgins to pagan gods and produced the caste system that sentenced some to perpetual slavery by accident of birth . . .

so those morals are better than the freedom you have today?

Give yourself a freaking break.

If AC Grayling and his crew of hypocrites hate religious UK they can go form their own country or move to China. If he thinks the way out of his own personal problem with christianity is to outlaw it then he's mistaken.

Someone once said yrs yrs ago that someday it will be a crime to read a bible in public . . . now i'm begining to take him seriously. The millitancy, the rage, the anger that virtually exudes from the posts of the anti-God crew is way beyond mere "we dont believe in God".

That is bullshit! Unless you claim that ALL religions teach the same morals . . . what religion influenced the morals in China or Taiwan?

Nobody is saying that all the religions teach exactly the same morals.
In the West and where Christianity has spread, morality is directed by the 10 Commandments. Prior to that, there were rules of morality in older religions. In other places, morality is dictated by the local religion. It's why idiots like you can't get on with Islam - the moral system differs. Then on top of the religious laws, you also have a system of morality that subconciously forms on top of that. For example, you want to punch someone in the face, but before you do so, you are presented with questions. Is it wrong to punch him? Why do you want to punch him? How do you feel when/if you punch him. How do you feel if you don't? How do you feel in the aftermath? What is your reaction? What is his reaction? In amongst all those questions is the subject of morality. Morality shaped by religion.

As for China. Again, I invite you to take a look at Taoism.

200yrs ago our Nigerian ancestors didnt have any foreign religion . . . what morals did they have and were they any better than ours today?

Yet again the blame game which I've already pointed out is totally and utterly irrelevant. The fact is that their morals were shaped by thier religion. It has nothing to do with if they were better or not.

Long long before christianity came . . . our ancestors killed twins, sacrificed virgins to pagan gods and produced the caste system that sentenced some to perpetual slavery by accident of birth . so those morals are better than the freedom you have today?

It is irrelevant. The fact is that those actions were also shaped by religion. It only proves my point. It has nothing to do with being better or worse. In your rush to defend Christianity you can't see that though. All you're doing is comparing one system of religious morality with another.




It makes me laugh. You profess to be a Christian yet you have no idea what impact it and other religions have on our very being.

Bastage:

Nobody is saying that all the religions teach exactly the same morals.
In the West and where Christianity has spread, morality is directed by the 10 Commandments. Prior to that, there were rules of morality in older religions. In other places, morality is dictated by the local religion. It's why idiots like you can't get on with Islam - the moral system differs. Then on top of the religious laws, you also have a system of morality that subconciously forms on top of that. For example, you want to punch someone in the face, but before you do so, you are presented with questions. Is it wrong to punch him? Why do you want to punch him? How do you feel when/if you punch him. How do you feel if you don't? How do you feel in the aftermath? What is your reaction? What is his reaction? In amongst all those questions is the subject of morality. Morality shaped by religion.

As for China. Again, I invite you to take a look at Taoism.

Same old story, they cant articulate a sentence without feeling the need to express rage. So much for their moral system . . . i'd be better off with one influenced by religion any day to these forever angry lynch mob.

We dont get along with islam not because of differing moral systems . . . we have problems with islam because a minority decide the only way to get to heaven is to blow the rest of us to smithereens. Apart from that the vast majority of us grew up and lived with muslims . . . we get along just fine.

Morality directed by the 10 commandments? How? Where are the 10 commandments in the US constitution?
So you need the 10 commandments to tell you that stealing, lying and beating up ur innocent neighbour is wrong?
If you were to develop a new moral code totally different from the 10 commandments, what would YOU put there?

I look at your example and i laugh . . . so you need religion to tell you it is against moral ethics to punch ur neighbour? How did our ancestors who never heard of the 10 commandments learn that it was wrong to beat their neighbour? They borrowed christian or muslim codes from the air?

Bastage:

Yet again the blame game which I've already pointed out is totally and utterly irrelevant. The fact is that their morals were shaped by their religion. It has nothing to do with if they were better or not.

It is irrelevant because it completely destroys your barren argument. If religion is the problem for morality today . . it is relevant to ask what formed the moral fibre of cultures that existed here on our own african shores 500 yrs ago? How did they know that killing was wrong for example?

Bastage:

It is irrelevant. The fact is that those actions were also shaped by religion. It only proves my point. It has nothing to do with being better or worse. In your rush to defend Christianity you can't see that though. All you're doing is comparing one system of religious morality with another.

The funny thing is i have not defended christianity on this thread AT ALL. But of course that is what you want to see.
I have only consistently asked that you provide concrete evidence for your charge that christianity or religion has negative effects on society.

Its a valid question.

Bastage:

It makes me laugh. You profess to be a Christian yet you have no idea what impact it and other religions have on our very being.

Mention just one example. Is that so difficult?

This is like talking to a five year old.

Same old story, they can't articulate a sentence without feeling the need to express rage. So much for their moral system . . . i'd be better off with one influenced by religion any day to these forever angry lynch mob.

*sigh*.
Their moral system is the same as yours and the same as mine. Created by religion. They're rebelling against it.

We don't get along with islam not because of differing moral systems . . . we have problems with islam because a minority decide the only way to get to heaven is to blow the rest of us to smithereens.

*sigh*.
You say there's no difference in morals and then excuse it by giving a difference in morality. You've just totally contradicted yourself.

Morality directed by the 10 commandments? How? Where are the 10 commandments in the US constitution?

*sigh*.
The US is probably the poorest example you could have used. It's whole creation was based upon Christian values and morality.

So you need the 10 commandments to tell you that stealing, lying and beating up ur innocent neighbour is wrong?

*sigh*
That is what the secularists and atheists are saying about you!!! They are stating that our system of morality is based on those Commandments, religious law and therefore religion and everything that comes with it and they see humanism as a better option.

I look at your example and i laugh . . . so you need religion to tell you it is against moral ethics to punch ur neighbour?

*sigh*.
Those moral ethics are drilled into the vast majority of the world's population from the day they are born by way of religion. It's not a question of "needing religion to tell you". You have no choice. It tells you wether you want it to or not. Again, this is what the secularists and atheists are rebelling against.

How did our ancestors who never heard of the 10 commandments learn that it was wrong to beat their neighbour? They borrowed christian or muslim codes from the air?

*sigh*
All religions have a code of conduct. They either borrow them, just as Christianity did from Judaism, adapt them from older religions as Judaism did with Babylonian religion or they create them for themselves.

If religion is the problem for morality today . . it is relevant to ask what formed the moral fibre of cultures that existed here on our own african shores 500 years ago? How did they know that killing was wrong for example?

*sigh*
There was religion in Africa 500 years ago. Didn't you know? It shaped the moral fibre of the societies back then.

The funny thing is i have not defended christianity on this thread AT ALL. But of course that is what you want to see.
I have only consistently asked that you provide concrete evidence for your charge that christianity or religion has negative effects on society.

*sigh*
Then why keep bringing the subject of Christianity up and comparing it's moral system with other religions whilst questioning wether it's better or not? If that's not a defence of Christianity, then what is? I started writing in this thread, specifically pointing out the fact that people like Grayling are rallying at religion as a whole, but you keep harping on about Christianity.

I have only consistently asked that you provide concrete evidence for your charge that christianity or religion has negative effects on society.

*sigh*
And I've explained to you time and time and time and time and time again that religion is responsible for both the positive and negatives within our societies because it has shaped mankind. Look in the mirror if you want concrete evidence.

Mention just one example. Is that so difficult?

*sigh*
I have mentioned one example - everything!!!! How much of a bigger example do you want?
I find it utterly hilarious that you as a Christian are writing off the impact of Christianity on the human mind as trivial when you're totally and utterly affected by it yourself.

Bastage:

This is like talking to a five year old.

I feel the same . . . rather than pore through the rants i'll just pick the ones that are most absurd.

Bastage:

*sigh*.
Their moral system is the same as yours and the same as mine. Created by religion. They're rebelling against it.

what is there alternative? If morality as created by religion is so bad . . . where is the one they would have loved us to emulate?

Bastage:

*sigh*.
You say there's no difference in morals and then excuse it by giving a difference in morality. You've just totally contradicted yourself.

if suicide bombing were a general muslim moral code there'd be no one left on earth.

Bastage:

*sigh*.
The US is probably the poorest example you could have used. It's whole creation was based upon Christian values and morality.

and surprisingly it has the largest group of athiests who are free to rail against christianity. What a shock!

Bastage:

*sigh*
That is what the secularists and atheists are saying about you!!! They are stating that our system of morality is based on those Commandments, religious law and therefore religion and everything that comes with it and they see humanism as a better option.

Where are the moral codes of humanism?

Bastage:

*sigh*
I have mentioned one example - everything!!!! How much of a bigger example do you want?
I find it utterly hilarious that you as a Christian are writing off the impact of Christianity on the human mind as trivial when you're totally and utterly affected by it yourself.

*sigh*
Everything is nothing. Its only a cop-out for you.

if christianity has such a negative impact on you its amazing you cant regale us with just one example. At least huxley and mantraa tried before they ran out of excuses.

Enjoy playing with ur toy soldiers.

Just look at the crap that you've written.

You ask me what moral code they would follow when I've already told you about humanism. You even acknowlege it yourself a couple of sentences later. Why ask a question only to answer it yourself a couple of seconds later?

if suicide bombing were a general muslim moral code there'd be no one left on earth.

Who the feck said it was a general muslim code? You were the one who raised the subject of suicide bombing. You just flit from one illogical connection to another and then accuse me as if I was the one who came up with the idea!!! WTF!!!! Contradictions are contradictions. You were caught red-handed. Trying to wave it away with yet another irrelevancy is what a fool would do.
What amazes me is that I stated there were moral differences between Islam and Christianity and the first and only thing you came up with was suicide bombing. I would have thought that the fact that Muslims don't recognise Christ as God would have been the major issue of moral difference, but no - you assert some trivial point and then work from that as if it's actually of great relevance. When challenged, you crash and burn in a tangled mess of illogical, irrelevant contradiction of your own making.

and surprisingly it has the largest group of athiests who are free to rail against christianity. What a shock!

So what? It's totally and utterly irrelevant - Like just about every other statement that you've made in this thread. The fact remains that the US was founded on Christian values and morality. Your original (bleeped up) assertion was that Christianity's moral code had nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter if they're all atheist, Satanists, Bush Baptists or Jedi Knights now. Yet again you make some sort of illogical connection that means absolutely nothing. I could counter you by claiming that the US contains the largest population of right-wing nutjob fundamentalists in the world, but although true, it's totally irrelevant to this topic.

Where are the moral codes of humanism?

That only displays your breath-taking ignorance. You don't know what humanism is yet you've sat here and argued on the subject? You condemn atheists and secularists without even knowing what they want? You're a piece of work, David. Humanism is a philosophy that is not hidden in some dark, dusty corner. You've just been too lazy or too stupid to study it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

You can't even use the excuse that you've overlooked them because they're just a bunch of under-educated crackpots. Amongst their number they count people like Albert Einstein  (he served on the advisory board of the First Humanist Society of New York).

Everything is nothing. Its only a cop-out for you.

That is just a pathetic statement. Go read a dictionary definition of the word "Everything" and then "Nothing". You'll see that they are complete opposites. I'd accuse you of using irony in your comparison but you're way too shallow to even understand what irony is and the uncomfortable truth is that you probably believe that statement.

if christianity has such a negative impact on you its amazing you can't regale us with just one example. At least huxley and mantraa tried before they ran out of excuses

You just keep repeating yourself over and over and over again. The same old utterly irrelevant shit. How many times have I told you in this thread that it has nothing to do with the blame game? Do you just skim through my words and then write any old shit in reply to some sort of imaginary post?  How many times do I have to tell you that negative impact is irrelevant? If something is irrelevant it doesn't need regaling you slowpoke.
And do you need me to yet again remind you that you're burbling on with your defence of Christianity, even though I've pointed out ad infinitum that the subject under discussion here is general religion. Looking back through your posts where you insist you never defended Christianity only proves you to be an ignorant liar.


I'm finished with you David. It's a total waste of time talking to someone who doesn't have the mental capacity to understand simple concepts.

Enjoy playing with ur toy soldiers.

I'd lend you my toy soldiers to play with but as they have moving parts, you'd probably choke on them. You're better off sticking with eating your safety crayons.

Secular humanism is humanist philosophy coined in the 20th century . . . your own wikipedia page.

Since when did philosophy become a moral code?

these hypocrites never cease to make you laugh.