There's no such thing as objectivity (so I may as well be religious).

[Khris]

Khris, there is a fundamental difference between saying "by acting this way I become more moral than acting that way" and saying "my morals are superior to your morals". They're not even related statements. Following my faith leads me to making more moral decisions than when I am not following my faith. This is what I said, and what I meant. Please do not try and twist my words into meaning something other than what I actually said.

I'm not trying to twist anything, I read it like that because the first part of the first quote referred to other people. I realize what you meant though.
So, let's try again:

But what you're saying boils down to "as long as I'm afraid of hell, I'll behave better". How does that support Mormonism or its morals? It simply means that you behave more moral if you follow a certain belief system. So what?
Taking heroin feels good. Does that means it's great stuff and should be legalized?

Running on that same line of thought though, if you stripped away every bit of mysticism, mythology, supernatural, paranormal, scientifically ineffable tradition from my belief system, you'd still be left with a set of guidelines that say to be generally awesome to everyone equally no matter what, to help the poor, sick, and needy, and to care about other people more than I care about myself. I will not be ashamed for saying that following these guidelines make me into a better person than I would otherwise be.

Again, if you need your religion to be a better person, that doesn't mean your religion is a good thing, let alone true.

Getting back to the thread's topic though: saying that since a person's thoughts are always subjective, therefore scientific research is bunk is complete bunk.
Science is all about eliminating subjectivity, it's the entire point of science. Science tries to get to the truth, but scientists will also admit that there's no such thing as 100% certainty.  It's all about the likelihood of things.
You seem to distrust science. Why? Could you elaborate?

[miguel]

Are you seriously going down this road? Do you honestly think you "chose" the religion you believe? Hell no. It was chosen for you (unless you did actually find a religion your parents didn't believe, then kudos to you). These were the options you were given as a child:
A: Accept their beliefs as your own
B: Objectively disbelieve in their faith
C: Find another faith.
All of these options, except for A leave you with this: what if I'm wrong and go to "hell" and never see my family again!!?

Hey Ryan, what the fuck are you talking about?
Do you think you know what I choose for my life? Seriously, do you?
Why? Did you google it?
Why in the hell do you believe that people don't have options? I think you consider yourself pretty smart, way too smart.
And, seriously, "go to hell and never see my family again?", really? Did somebody did that to you? Poor child.
Grow up dude, people are free to choose a religion and because this all thing started about gay marriage, let me tell you this: it's their ass, they do whatever they want with it. Catholics like me will never put a man down if he chooses to be gay or Muslim or atheists or anything. A man is a man and we are all children of God, dude.
This was taught by Jesus Christ and I choose to follow.

[Snarky]

I should love my Christian brothers and sisters more than my real sisters

There is absolutely no record of Christ (who fulfilled and superseded the Mosaic law, etc.) ever saying that anyone should be loved "more equally". Whoever told you this was not practicing Christianity.

Probably inspired by this:

While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” (Matthew 12:46-50)

See also:

I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law â€" a man's enemies will be the members of his own household. Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. (Matthew 10:35-37)

As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commands and remain in his love. I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends. You are my friends if you do what I command. (John 15:9-14)

[Khris]

if he chooses to be gay

Say what now?
Was this spur of the moment talk or do you really think gay people chose to be gay?

[Ryan Timothy B]

Hey Ryan, what the fuck are you talking about?

Obviously you're passionate and angry over something.

Do you think you know what I choose for my life? Seriously, do you?

Nope, but your argument defending parents saying it's the hardest job in the world told me your parents passed their religion on to you:

Raising a kid in a religious household is like brainwashing them.

Well, Khris, raising a kid is much more than that. It's the hardest job in the world and it really doesn't matter what religion the parents follow or don't follow. In fact, your assumptions are pretty much old-story, ignorant hate-rants against religious people are so gone this days that I think you're just trying to pick up a fight.

I only responded to that quote earlier because of your attitude towards Khris with the whole "hate-rants against religious people" and thinking he's trying to pick a fight, JUST because of him saying what is in fact true. Perhaps you were confused by what Khris actually meant. He was saying that the majority of all children born into a religious or non-religious family will adapt their parent's beliefs (I'm quite positive I don't need to show you statistics on this - you yourself should believe this to be true). His comment didn't warrant your response, and quite frankly neither did mine. Put the pitchfork away when you're in a debate. We're not trying to pick fights here, we're simply just expressing our own (albeit, bias) views in a religious debate.

You also never did acknowledge if your parents passed their religion onto you or not (so from here on out, I'm still going to assume that is a yes).

And, seriously, "go to hell and never see my family again?", really? Did somebody did that to you? Poor child.

Again, I haven't a blasted clue what your immature attitude is about. Poor child? I've seem to struck a cord with you. You're passionate about your religion and can't have a logical debate. I don't care that you have accepted your religious upbringings. I'm not against you. I do not dislike you (well, with that attitude, maybe I should?).

What I meant with that sentence you've quoted was that IF for the odd chance you decided to ditch the religion your family has instilled on you, whether you've chosen to be atheist or found another religion, there will always be that thought in your head that your choice was wrong and you may have consequences and go to hell - or whatever consequential punishment your religious views believe.

How could someone "have done that to me"? It doesn't make any sense at all. It's like you're just rambling after a few drinks. Are you asking if I went to hell? Because I clearly didn't.

Why in the hell do you believe that people don't have options?

Everyone has options, but will you necessarily choose one after it has already been chosen for you? Especially with something so powerfully impressionable as your family.

I think you consider yourself pretty smart, way too smart.

Actually no. I don't at all. But, you seem to forget that this is a debate. It has diddly squat with how smart that I think I am. Merely if you think I'm right or wrong.

if he chooses to be gay

Say what now?
Was this spur of the moment talk or do you really think gay people chose to be gay?

I love arguing with people and how they still believe being gay is a choice. Who in the world would want to choose ridicule and embarrassment for "attention" or whatever other ridiculous claims there are. The only choice about being gay is being in the closet or not. Pretending you're someone you're not to avoid the fallout.

It was actually this forum that convinced me that even sexual identity disorder was something you're born with. I always believed it was something that was passed down on you during growth.

My best friend's little brother used to cry about why he was attracted to men and not women. If it was a choice, he'd simply "choose" women instead of crying over why he's attracted to men.

[kconan]

Grow up dude, people are free to choose a religion...

They are free and occasionally some convert, though the majority of religious people follow the religion imposed on them as a child.  There have been surveys conducted on this.  In my years traveling around in the U.S. and nowadays Asia, I've only met one person who converted and that was for marriage.

[monkey0506]

I'm not trying to twist anything, I read it like that because the first part of the first quote referred to other people. I realize what you meant though.

Perhaps you did, perhaps you didn't mean to. I can see how it could have been misread, but I personally feel that in the context in which I was making the statement that my intent should have been clear. In any case, I've clarified it now, so that's that.

But what you're saying boils down to "as long as I'm afraid of hell, I'll behave better". How does that support Mormonism or its morals? It simply means that you behave more moral if you follow a certain belief system. So what?
Taking heroin feels good. Does that means it's great stuff and should be legalized?

I'm not at a point where I am living by my religious faith out of fear. I choose to follow it because it gives me a sense of direction in my life, and a sense of purpose. I don't expect you (or anyone else for that matter) to just blindly accept what I believe and start following it. I'll share it, talk about it, and even try to have a semi-rational debate where we can both share our point of view. But is it wrong for me to follow my own conviction, especially when my own life's events show that doing so makes me into a better person? There is historical evidence that shows the physical, mental, and socially detrimental effects of drug use. There's even historical evidence that people have used religion and their beliefs to commit some horrible atrocities. But is there evidence that I have done this? I firmly believe people should be held accountable for their own knowledge, understanding, and actions -- not the actions of other people.

Again, if you need your religion to be a better person, that doesn't mean your religion is a good thing, let alone true.

That's a fair assertion, and again, I don't expect you to accept my religion as true. But again, am I wrong to follow it if it does make me into a better person?

Getting back to the thread's topic though: saying that since a person's thoughts are always subjective, therefore scientific research is bunk is complete bunk.
Science is all about eliminating subjectivity, it's the entire point of science. Science tries to get to the truth, but scientists will also admit that there's no such thing as 100% certainty.  It's all about the likelihood of things.
You seem to distrust science. Why? Could you elaborate?

I don't distrust science. As "a man of faith" so-to-speak, you could say that I distrust the anti-religious agenda of some certain people in the scientific community. I don't think that science and my religious beliefs are entirely at odds. I think they fit together more like a jigsaw puzzle. Science doesn't offer all of the answers, and yet I don't claim that my religion is the source of all knowledge either. My church publicly advocates for its members "to obtain as much education as possible" (directly and explicitly stating that this is one of the purposes of holding the Aaronic priesthood). Is it any more right for me to blindly accept other people's scientific research than to blindly accept religion?

At some point you had asked what experiment I had taken on my religious beliefs (which I can't help but feel was somewhat devious in intent, seeing as I have already discussed that with you personally). I am not afraid to say it though. I prayed. I prayed about the existence of God. I prayed about the truthfulness of LDS doctrines. I prayed about the truthfulness of the LDS church. I have prayed about many, many different things. I am willing to accept that due to the personal and internal nature of this thing that it is not generally considered a replicable or even scientific experiment. Be that as it may, in every instance that I have seriously sought after an answer, I have had a personally unique experience. That is, there is nothing in my life outside of these so-called "religious" or "spiritual" events where I had the same experience.

Never, not even once have I come close to the same experience in any other area of my life. It wasn't like a thought, or a feeling. It wasn't a voice or a vision. For me, it has always been as though there was something inside of me, trying to burst out. Not like "Alien", but I don't know how else to exactly describe it. It has come with a clarity of mind, a peaceful calm, and an answer. Again, not like a thought in my mind, but just an answer to the question. It's not always the answer I expected. Sometimes the answer has been "no". The first time I prayed about the LDS church itself the answer was "wait".

I'm not saying this is compelling evidence, or that others haven't made claim to similar unscientific and personal experiences. However, this is not something I have willfully decided to make up in my own mind. I say that I have made objective decisions because I stated the results that I got, not necessarily the results I wanted or expected. Feel free to interpret this however you want. It's your prerogative to hold your own opinions, make your own decisions and judgments, etc. For me though, I am compelled to state the results that I have experienced, and this is what I am doing. And as I said, this experience has only come as a result of following my faith.

@Snarky: I can see how that could be interpreted to that end, but to me what it's saying is to love everyone equally, so I maintain what I said about no one being more equal than others. Even the verse saying that a man's enemies may be the members of his own household (presumably, if they choose not to follow Christ) doesn't say not to love them. Christ was rather explicit in detailing the need to love your enemies.

do you really think gay people chose to be gay?

There's no evidence to the contrary. Nor will there ever be, because it is a choice. And as for the dozen links that you'll send about the gay gene and so forth, there's two dozen more that show evidences that refute it.

Why in the hell do you believe that people don't have options?

Everyone has options, but will you necessarily choose one after it has already been chosen for you? Especially with something so powerfully impressionable as your family.

Ryan, you actually bring up a very interesting point here that I hadn't really thought of, or thought relevant. It's been pointed out several times (primarily by Khris) that I was raised in the Mormon/LDS church. What has been overlooked though is the reality of the situation. My biological father was Christian, but was never part of my life. My parents divorced while I was very young, and then he spent most of my childhood in prison for premeditated murder. From age five I was raised by my stepfather who, if pressured into prescribing, aligned himself as Catholic, though in the 15 years my parents were married he only ever went to church once. My mother was a member of the LDS church, but she never had a strong personal testimony about the church. That's not to say she didn't play a role in "indoctrinating" me, but it was far more passive than many of you might have perceived.

At best we went to church two dozen or so times throughout the year, though it was probably often less than that. In later years I would witness my brother (three years older than me) have a massive falling out with the LDS church, to the point that he was actually writing a letter to request that his name be stricken from all church records. I don't know whether he ever followed through with that. My brother will get extremely angry with me for believing in the LDS doctrine, to the point that we cannot even talk about religion in any regard. I do not know if he is actively practicing another denomination of the Christian faith. None of my three sisters have gone to the LDS church in their adult lives as far as I know (if they have, it has been only a few times at best), nor do they actively attend services elsewhere. My mother has openly expressed to me that she does not feel that she will return to the LDS church, though she has not been critical of my attendance.

Out of all of the members of my immediate family, I stand alone in practicing faith in the LDS church and doctrines. The fact that I was "raised" in the LDS church has played a role, by sheer fact that I have had more opportunity to learn about its teachings. I will maintain that I believe the LDS church to be the most true of any church on the face of the earth. I will maintain that even had I not been introduced to it as a child, given the opportunity I still would have become converted, even if that meant standing alone. The only role my family really played in my current beliefs is introducing me to the church, which was never forced upon me by them. Saying that I have made my own decisions does not mean that no outside party has influenced them (no one can say that, even about themselves), but rather that even in the face of opposition (my stepfather, my brother) I will stand behind the choices I have willfully made.

[Snarky]

do you really think gay people chose to be gay?

There's no evidence to the contrary. Nor will there ever be, because it is a choice. And as for the dozen links that you'll send about the gay gene and so forth, there's two dozen more that show evidences that refute it.

So then that applies to everyone, right? People choose who they're attracted to, who they fall in love with? When Ryan got a crush on his new female coworker and not his male one, that was just because he chose to?

Some people are more flexible than others, but I think the vast majority of us can tell just from introspection that this whole business of finding certain other people sexy is something biological, something not under our conscious control.

[Ryan Timothy B]

There's no evidence to the contrary. Nor will there ever be, because it is a choice. And as for the dozen links that you'll send about the gay gene and so forth, there's two dozen more that show evidences that refute it.

But you're not looking at this clearly. Are you at all attracted to men? If you are, then maybe that's why you're confused with what gay actually is, and therefore you believe there's a choice. Maybe you're bisexual and have chosen women over the other attractions you feel towards men.

If you're heterosexual then it should be completely and 100% clear to you. I know when I look at a woman (as Snarky pointed out), I can be mesmerized in an instant. Completely infatuated and turned on. Or in some extreme cases an immediate erection - or at least blood flow towards that certain member. But on the other hand, if I try to look at a man with sexual thoughts, the exact opposite occurs. My anus practically puckers up tightly with the sheer idea of it. Now that right there is my immediate telltale sign that not a single person would want to choose against that (in my case, my feeling towards women over men). I don't need a doctor or scientist to study gay people to know this to be the case.

You make the "gay gene" sound like it's super rare for someone to be attracted to men or attracted to women. There aren't two separate factories that makes women and men. We're developed in the same womb as your sister or brother, from a single cell turning into the trillions and trillions of cells you have at birth. One hiccup and you're blind, missing a leg, bad heart, no fingers, autistic, etc. Why is it so hard to believe that your brain was developed with the attraction towards women, while your brother may have had a hiccup and is attracted to men.

Hell, we can't even get a house concrete contractor to do his job properly and pour a foundation without issues; cracks, pits, unsquare, etc. And you're supposed to believe the human mind, which is the most complex organic thing I believe we've ever studied, can develop 100% without accidentally having the female attraction or male attraction in the wrong sexes.

And you say you're scientific.

[Stupot]

@Ryan. I'm with you in your stance that homosexuality is not a choice and that some people are simply hard wired to prefer men. You make it sound like a disability though. Which I'm sure was not your intention, but could prove controversial

[Ryan Timothy B]

I didn't actually mean for it to sound like a disability defect, but now that you've mentioned it, for all purposes of procreation it kind of is...? I don't consider a gay person as defected though, just unfortunately different from the expected norm.

Edit: Oops. I don't mean disability. I meant defect.

[miguel]

To Ryan, who I love:

Nope, but your argument defending parents saying it's the hardest job in the world told me your parents passed their religion on to you:

I believe raising a child is the hardest job in the world. If I was gay or atheist I would think the same.
My mother died when I was 8. I do not recall her "forcing" religion on me although I am aware that she never told me the contrary.
My father was/is a communist inveterate and mocks religion every time he can.
My grandparents on my father side were Catholics but in a very humble way, they were poor people and I guess they would go with the flow without thinking about it.
My grandparents on my mother side divorced around the 50's and that was pretty much a scandal. She was very religious and he was not.
During some years of my life I was taught religion, I took it with a great deal of interest but I had wonderful teachers. I remember clearly a Nun saying that the guy with the long beard was a representation of God and wasn't to be taken seriously. She told me to feel God rather then trying to interpret everything they were teaching Sunday afternoons. She could tell I was smart and some stuff didn't quite "work" on me. One time one of the nuns asked why people should not harm/kill others. I was the first raising my hand and replied that the species could become endangered. She could not hold a smile.
I grew up, did whatever teens do and religion wasn't really that interesting to me.
I got hooked on alternative music and surprise, surprise, many of my hero singers were rebelling against religion. I somehow figured that part of rock&roll is to go against what is established. I never rebelled myself against religion. How could music and words so beautiful laced be a source of evil or anything similar? I understood the differences. I even read Rinbaud and fell in love with his passion but then Nick Drake arrived and I was peaceful again.
The rest of my life? Grew up, found a job "but Heaven knew I was miserable, then." No, not really. I just had a normal life, had a band, smoked some joints, had girlfriends, travelled during winters after saving up in the summer. Happy days with no conflict with anyone because I loved Jesus and his thinking.
Eventually I met my wife back in 2004. We are now 5 plus a dog at home. 2 boys and a girl. None of them is catholic. The older ones hated church. The younger one is really excited about becoming a scout.
What can I say. When they ask questions about religion, I give them my honest opinion. And that's how far I go.
I hope this answers this:

You also never did acknowledge if your parents passed their religion onto you or not (so from here on out, I'm still going to assume that is a yes).

You could have asked.

Perhaps you were confused by what Khris actually meant.

I'm not confused by what Khris meant and I believe he doesn't need anybody to answer for him.
It's pretty degrading for parents when you call brainwashing the effort it is to raise their children. Yes they do copy you in order to learn, but even at tender ages they have their specific personalities. No way I could have ever take my older one from playing football. It was clear by the age of 6 that he was not the religious type.
Khris is one of those guys that really are the "salt" of our ironic life. I "read" Khris posts more times than I read my sports column for the past 10 years.
First things first, his altruistic nature is only found among saints. I love to read the lines between the lines of his posts and find really amusing when he "picks" on Monkey.

Again, I haven't a blasted clue what your immature attitude is about.

We, Catholics, understand what "hell" is early on in our lives. You passed the idea that all Catholics are terrified that hell is around the corner.
Sorry if I was immature, your assumptions are irresponsible.
I had the feeling you were the one "haunted" by that fear of renouncing religion and pay the price.
That's the problem, see? You guys think that being a religious person is like going to work and put your name when you get in and on your way out. It's not. Being religious is a state of mind that guides your actions and helps you to cope with stressful situations.
My boss, last month or so, had to go to a family funeral. There was a mass the day after or so. He is not Catholic or even the least religious kind of person. I asked him why he went to the mass. Was it by respect for the rest of the family. He answered, "No. Sometimes I just want to listen to a priest. It's the right words at the right time."

It's like you're just rambling after a few drinks. Are you asking if I went to hell? Because I clearly didn't.

Glad you didn't. Beware though. God may strike you with vengeful wrath for calling one of his sons a drinker.

Everyone has options, but will you necessarily choose one after it has already been chosen for you? Especially with something so powerfully impressionable as your family.

Assumptions again. You could have asked.
Intelligent people do change their minds. And now you know part of my life story. Can we really measure who impressed us more? My family or yours?

But, you seem to forget that this is a debate.

And you don't?

I didn't actually mean for it to sound like a disability defect, but now that you've mentioned it, for all purposes of procreation it kind of is...? I don't consider a gay person as defected though, just unfortunately different from the expected norm.

Procreation? Would you stop and read what you write, Ryan? People don't procreate, they wish to raise children. It's one of the most beautiful moments in one's life when you and your partner decide to have kids.
A gay is unfortunately different? Maybe he is lucky that he's not like you?
Look at what all that science and disbelief in religion made of you.

[Khris]

Monkey:
Please don't insinuate malicious intent until it's clearly there. I already explained why I read what you said how I did.
And I looked up the PMs we exchanged and you indeed had already told me about your experiences; I didn't remember that though and even if I had, I probably wouldn't have realized that those were the experiments you were referring to earlier.

Again, if you need your religion to be a better person, that doesn't mean your religion is a good thing, let alone true.

That's a fair assertion, and again, I don't expect you to accept my religion as true. But again, am I wrong to follow it if it does make me into a better person?

Have you identified the reason? Why is it that not following your religion makes you a worse person?
My point is: maybe you only behave worse because while not following it, you still hold it to be true. See, if I were convinced that infidels go to hell, and I stopped trying to convert others, I'd probably feel bad, too, because now I'm not trying my best to help others avoid hell. But if I stopped believing instead, this problem would simply disappear.
You're saying that your religion gives you "direction in my life, and a sense of purpose". That's fine of course, but aren't you curious where atheists get those?

I don't distrust science. As "a man of faith" so-to-speak, you could say that I distrust the anti-religious agenda of some certain people in the scientific community.

Afaik, scientists only push back, for instance when creationists try to sneak their religion into public schools. Could you explain what you mean by "anti-religious agenda"?

Be that as it may, in every instance that I have seriously sought after an answer, I have had a personally unique experience. That is, there is nothing in my life outside of these so-called "religious" or "spiritual" events where I had the same experience. [...] I'm not saying this is compelling evidence, or that others haven't made claim to similar unscientific and personal experiences. However, this is not something I have willfully decided to make up in my own mind.

Lots of people have these experiences. Have you considered that there could be a natural, scientific explanation for them? Even if we accept it as evidence, what about other people all over the planet, who have similar experiences? Why isn't the first thing that inner voice is telling them something along the lines of "you should convert to the LDS Church, because it's the religion closest to the truth"?
Even if we didn't know anything about how unreliable our brain can be, I'd still have to conclude that this is just evidence for a weird, natural experience, not for a supernatural being that takes an interest in my personal life.

do you really think gay people chose to be gay?

There's no evidence to the contrary. Nor will there ever be, because it is a choice. And as for the dozen links that you'll send about the gay gene and so forth, there's two dozen more that show evidences that refute it.

I'm actually glad you said that, because finally, here's the real reason why you oppose gay marriage.
I'm not going to link to anything, I don't really need to. Homosexual behavior is observed in hundreds of animal species. Either religions are wrong, humans aren't special, and there are animals who choose to be gay, or some animals (including humans) are simply born closer to the other end of the Kinsey scale.
Then there's the high schoolers who are relentlessly bullied for being gay, to the point that some of them commit suicide. Either they chose to be gay at a very bad time, or they simply were born closer to the other end of the Kinsey scale.

My reasoning for why some (most? I don't know) religious people believe that being gay is a choice is as follows:
A) There are gay people
B) According to religion, gays are an abomination, and God wants them dead
C) God is omniscient and created humanity
So either God created gays and he's being or huge dick about it, or being gay is a choice.
Which of course means that if a religious person accepted that gays didn't choose, they'd have to face a pretty massive contradiction in their belief system.

There's a really simple way to get a definite answer though. You wrote earlier that you occasionally have friendly interactions with homosexuals. Why not ask them?
If you're feeling cocky, you can also ask them a loaded question like "why did you choose to be gay?"

[Cyrus]

The whole "religion versus science" debate seems pretty futile, since they do not actually overlap. Religion never tries to answer the materialistic questions like "What does matter consist of?" or "If we throw a rock upwards, why does it fall down?", and science can tell nothing about what lies beyond the material world (like I already said, you cannot discover God, angels or demons in a physical experiment). And while science gives us experimentally proven facts, religion and atheism are just philosophic paradigms that both can match those facts (why couldn't have God invented the Standart Model, after all?  ).

People can actually be good and moral without any sort of religion, but I think the best thing it gives us is the belief in afterlife. Because, if our loved ones are really gone forever and we'll never ever see them again, then we live in a really Crapsack world. And, since we'll never know for sure unless we die, we can only hope this isn't the case.

[Khris]

Cyrus:
There are religious claims that clearly contradict science. Let's not forget that all Christians used to take the entire bible as literal truth, and Creationists today still do so. They claim things like "the Grand Canyon was created by the biblical flood". The entire point of the existence of the Institute for Creation Research or the Intelligent Design movement is to try and prove their religion by using science. (They actually think that in order to prove their religion, it's enough to disprove evolution, a classic fallacy.)
In other words: if all progressive religious people would start a concerted effort to oppose creationism and fundamentalism, I'd be all for it. They don't do that though.

Your second point sounds like "wishful thinking is the greatest thing ever". Is it really more important whether a belief is comfortable than whether it is true? If you think (like I do) that this life is the only one you'll have, you're going to try and make it count.
You should really read up on the arguments against Pascal's Wager.

[miguel]

Yes Cyrus, religion and the belief in afterlife are indeed a human "mechanism" to cope with death. We would probably exterminate ourselves if we were 100% certain that "only" human laws can "punish" or "reward" us during our lifespan.
Atheism is a modern conception if we consider how long humans have been in Earth.
This said, let's say that humans created the notion of God(s) to protect themselves.
Of course, in these Times of Plenty, we also built the idea that life is perfectly possible (better to some) without God(s) and that human justice is enough to balance things. Being religious became a sign of ignorance.
Justice.
The conflict between Divine Justice and Human Justice.
I ask all those that do not believe in God or any type of Divinity, what do you fear? Certainly not a Hell that exists only in the heads of the poor minded?
Certainly not the vengeance of a God that never was.
Do you fear difference?
Is it better for the homosexuals to be "judged" by a God that does not exists, by a notion that is thinner than air?
Or is it better for the homosexuals to be "judged" by humans with all their incredible thoughts on homosexuality?
There is a greater danger in "extracting" divinity from society than it may look.

Khris, I apologize for getting into you and Monkey's conversation, but when you say:

According to religion, gays are an abomination, and God wants them dead

we have come a long way regarding this. Like I said and will say it every time it is needed, as a Catholic I will love a gay person the same way I would a non-gay one. This was taught to me by my religion.
One thing is what the Vatican says about things like homosexuality, condoms and such and the other thing is what are the true actions of catholic communities.
Never did I hear a priest publicly condemning somebody gay in a mass. The traditional family concept is of course praised as the "right" way but that is fairly accepted as conservationism behaviour. There's no "wrath against gay sinners" crap.
I also believe that gays have more to fear from other portions of our society than from Catholics.

[monkey0506]

Please don't insinuate malicious intent until it's clearly there.

This is why I simply said that it felt as if that was your intent. Perhaps it wasn't, but it still came across that way.

You're saying that your religion gives you "direction in my life, and a sense of purpose". That's fine of course, but aren't you curious where atheists get those?

Sure, so long as it continues to be "fine of course" if I don't suddenly drop my faith upon hearing your reasoning. I didn't mean to imply that people can't live good, moral, meaningful, productive lives without religion. I just meant that my religion pushes me toward leading that type of life myself.

I don't distrust science. As "a man of faith" so-to-speak, you could say that I distrust the anti-religious agenda of some certain people in the scientific community.

Afaik, scientists only push back, for instance when creationists try to sneak their religion into public schools. Could you explain what you mean by "anti-religious agenda"?

Seeing as you mentioned schools, it's well and fine if they don't teach theology in public schools, but many schools (at least in the US) have explicit bans on students practicing their religion during school hours. This violates what the founding fathers of this country considered to be a basic and inalienable human right.

There also has been in recent years a massive, concerted effort by the scientific community at large to discredit the plausibility of creationism. You can scream Occam's razor all day long, but it doesn't mean that the alternative isn't still equally possible. Even in the last 10-15 years there have been major revocations of statements that could have been seen as giving even the slightest credence to creationists. And when I say "major revocations" I am expressly referencing an effort to cover up and hide the information, to the point that providing links or references would be impossible.

Lots of people have these experiences. Have you considered that there could be a natural, scientific explanation for them?

Sure, but until counter-evidence is provided that shows that it was really just a brain tumor all along, am I not compelled to state the observable results?

Even if we accept it as evidence, what about other people all over the planet, who have similar experiences? Why isn't the first thing that inner voice is telling them something along the lines of "you should convert to the LSD Church, because it's the religion closest to the truth"?

Supposing that it were true would indicate that men are expected to walk by a certain level of faith. If all men had a perfect knowledge of things then there would be no more cause for faith, and in that perfect knowledge man's agency would be destroyed. Who would knowingly (assuming a perfect knowledge) subject themselves to an eternity of anything less than the promised unending joy and happiness? I assert that no one in this situation would willfully choose another path, even if given the opportunity. So perfect knowledge would frustrate our entire purpose behind being here (from a Christian POV).

By extension of this then, men are expected to seek after God and find for themselves the answer. I don't think every person who prays about their faith is in a position to be told to join the LDS church. As I said, I was told to wait for an answer (although I was already a member by this point) about the truthfulness of the church. I believe that men are accountable for obtaining a certain level of knowledge about these things before these answers are provided (in a sense, due diligence).

Even if we didn't know anything about how unreliable our brain can be, I'd still have to conclude that this is just evidence for a weird, natural experience, not for a supernatural being that takes an interest in my personal life.

I still find it interesting that any being which could possibly be more powerful than a human being automatically falls into the category of "supernatural".

My reasoning for why some (most? I don't know) religious people believe that being gay is a choice is as follows:
A) There are gay people
B) According to religion, gays are an abomination, and God wants them dead
C) God is omniscient and created humanity
So either God created gays and he's being or huge dick about it, or being gay is a choice.
Which of course means that if a religious person accepted that gays didn't choose, they'd have to face a pretty massive contradiction in their belief system.

Do people necessarily make a conscious decision to become alcoholics? To become pedophiles? To develop mental illness? Just because a person is born with certain tendencies or predispositions to acting a certain way doesn't mean that they don't still have a choice in the matter. Saying "God wants [gays] dead" is along the same lines as saying "God wants everyone dead" just because he flooded the earth that one time. Homosexuality being an abomination before God does not necessarily mean he wants them to die, but there are biblical examples showing that at certain times God has deemed it better for some to die than to lead others astray (coz, y'know, being gay is a choice and all).

I'll maintain that I have nothing against anyone for being gay. That doesn't mean that I would support them in getting benefits that I don't even support hetero couples getting.

[Andail]

I'm curious about one thing, so here's a question to any christian person reading.

When I look at the laws of my country - or other countries - I have opinions about them. I acknowledge that they're the result of democratic processes; social institutions, governments, societies that evolve, etc, all trying to create a functional system, but I still have opinions about them. If my country wouldn't allow gay couples to marry, I would be upset, and perhaps try to influence people and change their opinions.

When you look at the Bible, do you ever have opinions on the rules stipulated there? Do you ever go "oh, the Bible - and God - seem to say that being gay is a sin (or an abomination), but that sure sucks, and I wish it wasn't so." I'm just curious if you always agree with God, even when there's no conceivable reason for the rule to exist?

And when it comes to the claim that not believing is a kind of religion too... I'm surprised intelligent people still use this argument, because it's so incredibly illogical.

Do you believe there's a goblin in your basement right now? You can't be sure. There's no evidence he's there, and he won't show up if you ask him. However, if you told your kids he existed, they would believe you (if they were small enough). Would you say that not believing in the goblin is also a religion? Or would you say that a lack of belief is just that - a lack of belief, and not a brand new set of beliefs? Do you understand that for non-religious people, your God is just another goblin in the basement? 

[Khris]

Miguel:
I'm pretty sure that no matter how early in the history of mankind, whenever there was a religion, there were people who we would call atheists around.
One could also argue that until the very first religion, everybody was an atheist.
According to Wikipedia, there were explicitly atheist groups as far back as at least 600 BCE.

We would probably exterminate ourselves if we were 100% certain that "only" human laws can "punish" or "reward" us during our lifespan.

What...? Why?

You asked what I fear:
One thing I fear is violence based on irrationality (for instance somebody blowing themselves up next to me because they think their God wants them to).
It sounds like you're saing "it's better to view homosexuality as a sin, because the only alternative is viewing it as a crime". Is this what you believe, or am I misunderstanding you?
How about we don't judge homosexuals at all, until they actually break a law?
It also sounds like you're saying that faith is a good thing because the fear of judgment makes people do good things. The corollary is that only atheists can be truly selfless, because whenever a believer does something good, they do it in part to ensure they'll go up to heaven. If you don't accept that, then belief isn't required to be a good person, and your argument for faith is gone.

Regarding "God wants them dead":
I wrote "why some (most? I don't know) religious people". Nowhere did I say "all Catholics".
Why do you think being gay is a choice?
And what is your personal opinion about Romans 1:26-27?

[Khris]

(double-post to avoid wall of text)

Seeing as you mentioned schools, it's well and fine if they don't teach theology in public schools, but many schools (at least in the US) have explicit bans on students practicing their religion during school hours. This violates what the founding fathers of this country considered to be a basic and inalienable human right.

Could you back this up? Afaik, this claim is pure propaganda. Atheists don't oppose students carrying a bible or praying at school, what they oppose is putting the ten commandments on the walls of classrooms or mandatory prayer sessions for all students.

There also has been in recent years a massive, concerted effort by the scientific community at large to discredit the plausibility of creationism.

You mean like the massive, concerted effort to discredit the plausibility of astrology or alchemy?

You can scream Occam's razor all day long, but it doesn't mean that the alternative isn't still equally possible.

Yes it does. The evidence points away from creationism. We could debate this all day long, and I don't plan to do so. I'll point you to http://www.talkorigins.org/ and leave it at that.

I am expressly referencing an effort to cover up and hide the information, to the point that providing links or references would be impossible.

So are you saying there's a massive, global conspiracy among scientists?

I still find it interesting that any being which could possibly be more powerful than a human being automatically falls into the category of "supernatural".

I'm not claiming that there are supernatural beings or forces, that's what religions do.

Do people necessarily make a conscious decision to become alcoholics? To become pedophiles? To develop mental illness? Just because a person is born with certain tendencies or predispositions to acting a certain way doesn't mean that they don't still have a choice in the matter.

So you accept that some men are born with a tendency to find other men hot, but they can choose to not feel that way?
Like I said, please go and ask a few gay people about this. There's really no point in discussing this until you do.