Sigh....

*puts his troll pants on*

Please show the statistics to back your posting up.

Personally I have no problems with religion. As long as people choose it themselves and are not forced into a religion. Most people are brainwashed with religion from birth and never thought about it themselves, that is something I do have problems with.

boy, thats a crap source indeed

Not going into when political ideologies become religion, but I don't think you need religion or atheism for massacres Yell.

A wise man might perhaps believe in the sound ability of reason and logic as opposed to filling the void with dictates from outside sources. Human law or divine, neither are important to a man who does what he belives is right. Others judge, thats all there is in my opinion for whatever that's worth. When you let others decide in a prima facie way what your morals or laws should be your probably not going to obey them when all is said and done.

All communists are atheists--they raise government to the position of god, giving it absolute authority over all aspects of men's lives. Every communist in Amerika who identifies themself as religious (there are many) is not religions, he's a fool.

Baratheon,

Actually, Yell connected Communist Russia with Atheism. I replied to Yell's silly connection, and Kemp replied to me.

Justinian I,

I made no such claim. Your lack of discrimination between necessary and sufficient is dumb!

Baratheon,

Communism is growing in the United States. The growth of this population is evidence of a rise in faithlessness, which is directly in response to the formative post. If you have trouble with a topic, please refrain from commenting on my posts. It's rude to cause me to respond to such drivel. Thanks.

I was responding to the OP, not Justinian I. I was just remarking that there's a huge population of faithless in Amerika, whether they or those of faith are growing quicker. I additionally pointed out that not all of those claim a religious affiliation actually have an ounce of faith in their claimed religion. Many churches have seen falling attendance for decades. Many people who show up on Christmas and Easter have absolutely no regard for their religion beyond these 2 hours a year.

Einstein cites ridiculous figures. First, he compares church worship (base opportunity, utilized by many, of 52/yr for weekly attendance+a few holidays) to sports attendance. This ignores all kinds of obvious facts. Even combining all sports, I doubt anyone would ever want to attend 52 games a year, and even less would even have the opportunity. Many people much prefer watching sporting events in their own homes rather than having the hassle of driving, parking, weather, and prices to attend games. And the statistics cited in his link are from 18 years ago. Making claims about "soon" based on statistics from 18 years ago is humorous, but certainly not insightful.

Pixies,

I think you're mostly right. While I like the Bible as more metaphorical philosophy, I think most people take religions as hokum or relatively literally true. I think most people either believe in a dude literally walking on water or they don't (Christian reference); there's not much room for appreciating figurative "eternal life" by loving and having a positive impact on the world around a person which persists long after one's own death.

Faith already has virtually no power on earth (relatively speaking), beyond the money these corporations bring in. I find the alarmism of secularists quite alarming, since religious nuts offer us little to be afraid of. I don't see "faith" in moral philosophies (many of you surely consider all moral philosophies matters of "faith") as problematic to society any more than cultures and values are signs of ignorance and unsophisticated culture. I'm not suggesting that the philosophy I describe here accounts for many of the "faithful," but I do find generalized condemnations of religion as ignorant and idiotic to be short-sighted. Many great thinkers have weighed in on moral philosophy. Generalized attacks on "faith" of any time is presumably an insult to their musings on morality.

In your judgement, a normal person abandons their faith/philosophy when faced with death? Fascinating.

In your judgement, Sharia is the first example that comes to mind when you think of Atheist law? Fascinating.

> Einstein wrote:

> In Citation: National & International Religion Report, 5/2/94. "To Verify," Leadership.)

Seems he cited his work <

Is that the source from the link you posted? 'cause using a 18 year old study doesn't seem like good academia to me, especially for sociological issues.

This is a little more up to date: http://www.pewforum.org/Unaffiliated/nones-on-the-rise.aspx

Einstein,

It's still a horribly flawed measure for the other reasons I pointed out. Nice job completely ignoring this. Understandable, because the flaws are so huge and obvious. What's not understandable is why you post this nonsense and stand behind it when you obviously know it's garbage, so much so you don't even try to defend it.

Little Paul,

"I said nothing about philosophy."

A lot of moral philosophy cannot be empirically or logically based, so it's a matter of faith. A lot of faith is moral philosophy. In the context I was speaking, you said a lot about philosophy.

Thanks for stating the obvious, that many "believers" don't really put much stock in their belief. So what? The point's been made. Without any statistics we cannot show how prevalent this phenomenon is (I don't disagree it's common). Rambling about DNA is similarly pointless. DNA doesn't make anyone cling to religion or science as if it obliterates all forms of faith and/or moral philosophy.

"It was ment ironic. As in: "this is an example of a religious law system..." "...the generalization isn't correct cause many atheists do not glorify a law system.""

Yet it was no example of atheists not raising law to the highest authority imaginable. You failed to comprehend or respond to his point that atheists raise law to the highest moral authority void of any moral philosophy or other code of conduct. How clever of you to point out that atheists reject Sharia, as just about every other sane person does. This, however, makes no point in regard to the argument that atheism inherently raises law to a higher authority than it is viewed by many of faith.

People of faith tend to temper law with limits based on their moral philosophy and the value they give freedom.

The more faithless (atheistic) someone is, the more likely they are to vote Democrat/Socialist/Communist. This is in line with the argument that atheists raise laws to a higher authority than those of faith; Democrats/Socialists/Communists all raise laws to a higher status and seek to empower government to regulate and run all things on earth, from providing jobs, determining wages, running/providing healthcare, regulating what you eat and otherwise put in your body, etc.

These are not the sort of things lovers of freedom endorse, and these are things atheists disproportionately support. It's evidence to The Yell's argument that atheists make human laws sacred. Statistically, they are more likely than average to do so. Random Sharia references which miss the point do not change this, or even address it.

Little Paul,

I explained that all moral philosophy is faith, by most measures, just as religion is. To discount all religion as ignorant, stupid, worthless, and/or entirely baseless purely on the grounds of its faith elements is to conclude the same things of moral philosophy, as it shares the faith element which you base your condemnations of religion on. You're equivocating over word choice and not responding to this point. If my statement was over your head, I hope my restatement of the point here has helped.

You made absolutely no point with your Sharia reference. You were trying to point out that atheists don't raise law to being sacred, so you pointed out that Atheists don't embrace Sharia. Yeah, I got it the first time. But this outlandish example of atheists rejecting religious law completely misses the point that The Yell was making, which is that atheists raise law (secular law) the the position of highest authority. They tend not to limit laws with moral values like freedom and individual rights. Voting statistics back up this claim. It's you who've missed the point, again repeatedly equivocating and not responding to what was posted.

"How Atheist Voters Could Change American Politics Forever"
http://www.policymic.com/articles/20404/how-atheist-voters-could-change-american-politics-forever
"More specifically, Democrats dominate with what Pew calls