Actually, a lot of what is in our legal system is from the bible.

Thou shalt not kill / murder.
Thou shalt not bear false witness.
Thou shalt not covet your neighbor's house
Thou shalt not covet your neighbor's wife

In what way is it wrong to take inspiration from this?

I agree wholeheartedly on this point! No problems whatsoever with these. However, these are not uniquely christian values. I can choose to not murder, lie or steal and have no belief whatsoever in the supernatural. I take umbrage, however, when someone's particular belief system decrees that I not eat pork (bacon is good, mmkay?,) eat shellfish or wear clothing of two different types of cloth because their holy book says its wrong. At this point, however, we are cherry picking the values we're promoting. There are a LOT of rules and stipulations in the christian holy book and the underlying Abrahamic texts which have no relevance or bearing in modern times. See my 3 examples above.

The teachings of Christianity and Islam are not the same and it would be unfair to put both in the same category.  Just as it is unfair to say that Secularism is supreme and is the only belief system allowable.

You may be surprised - both islam and christianity (and judaism) are based upon Abrahamic underpinnings, teachings and writings, and the vast majority of christian beliefs are the same as those held by muslims. The key and core exception is they believe jesus was a prophet while christians believe he was the son of god, elevating him beyond the other prophets. Secularism differs from these (and any other rigid belief system) in that changes over time to reflect human kind's deepened and improved understanding of the universe without a supernatural attribution. For what it is worth, in my opinion people can believe whatever they want to believe. However, my votes will be cast as _I_ believe fit, just as yours should be cast as you see fit.

Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion. Freedom of religion is freedom to practice one's religion without persecution by the government... which is what your statement seems to advocate.... persecute religious believers and automatically say that they are unfit to lead and that only secular people are fit to lead.

I disagree with this point. Freedom of religion states unequivocally that people in this country can hold whatever belief system they want, allowing that they do not harm others. This means they can choose NO organized belief system. If someone chooses to believe in astrology, that is their right. If they choose to believe in animal spirits they can. If they want to believe in their own divinity, have at it. The line is drawn where they believe something and then try to force their beliefs on others. My statement in no way advocates one belief system over another. However, I also have the right to vote for the candidates I believe are fit to hold office. Someone that believes that the earth is 6,000 years old will not receive my vote, the same as someone that believes that Cthulu is real, the Easter Bunny actually hides easter eggs or Santa slides down the chimney on december 25th. An inflexible belief in mythology - ANY mythology - is an immediate vote for whoever is running against them, from me.

The scientific mind always allows for the possibility that what it believes is wrong and continues to test current theories and understanding of the empirical universe. To say that the widely-held theory of evolution is the one and only true explanation for the origin of our world and is irrefutable, is as dogmatic as how you claim religious belief system to be.

Darwin's theory of evolution is what it is... a theory. A good one... but it is still only a theory. There are circumstantial evidence that seems to support it but one cannot prove it for sure because one cannot replicate evolution over millions of years.  Belief in evolution is also faith-based as no one has actually seen or made it to happen.

The mind that explains the theory of evolution is the same as the mind that sees A and Z and assumes B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y is in between although there are nearly infinite other possibilities that could have happened considering that the timespan concerned is in the BILLIONS of years.

In fact, major mutations are usually fatal to the mutated creature.  Mutation / variations seem to only be survivable within very small parameters (changing eye color, skin color, height, weight, etc).  Has anyone been able to produce an apple from a banana?  Or how about grow a bird from a fish?  No... A species only produces others of its own species.  Funny that the Bible happens to state that this is so.

You've fallen into the trap of misunderstanding the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. From wikipedia - "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation." A critical point is that a scientific theory MUST be falsifiable, meaning there has to be some way to disprove it. For it to be an accepted scientific theory, as your example of evolution is, it must have successfully passed all falsifiability tests, meaning the test was attempted, but the theory was once again proven accurate. This has to be done over the long term, thus the "well-substantiated" and "based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation."

Again, from wikipedia: "A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon." The barriers to a hypothesis are much lower than a scientific theory. The theory of evolution is a theory, not a hypothesis.

Genesis 1:11-12
"Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good."

Genesis 1:24-25
"And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Notice how in Genesis, it often says "according to their kind."  In this case, which is more correct based on what we can observe empirically?  Do we see any species producing offsprings not of their own species anywhere?  Ever?  Which does empirical evidence seem to support now?  Darwin or Genesis 1?

Again, you have fallen into a trap of words. Speciation (the evolution of a new species from a predecessor) occurs over a very long period of time - geologically long. Evolution occurs in very small steps - individual mutations which are possibly then passed to subsequent generations. It is the compound of multiple mutations over a geologically long span of time where we see new species. The small steps that comprise speciation are very simple and extraordinarily well-documented, though, so we can observe it on a human-discernable scale. For instance, mutations in fruit flies, bean plants and other fast growing and dying species is easily observed even without a lab. There are numerous observed and documented examples of longer term mutations which approach speciation: look up three-toed skinks, italian wall lizards and peppered moths.

Scientists will never be able to observe evolution of a banana to a potato. They aren't even in the same branches of the 'tree' =) However, they certainly observe the minute genetic changes (evolution) that, in aggregate lead to speciation and have a very long and well documented "tree of life" of speciation from fossil records as a historical guide of how the process plays out over the necessary geologically long time spans.

Yikes!  And that is why we have the current crop of politicians and CEOs that we have now.

There are a lot of power hungry, hypocritical people in all walks of life. How many of the politicians currently in office support a religious faith - ANY faith - then act counter to it's teachings?

I too, can cite scripture:

Luke 21:1-4
'And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury, and He saw also a certain poor widow putting in two mites. So He said, “Truly I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all; for all these out of their abundance have put in offerings for God, but she out of her poverty put in all the livelihood that she had.”'

and yet they do everything within their power to ensure their money is hoarded for their own purposes and work stridently to ensure those poorest in our society lose what welfare they currently have? The level of hypocrisy is astounding to me.

Leviticus provides no end of excitement:

Leviticus 18:22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Leviticus 19:5-7
"And if ye offer a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the LORD, ye shall offer it at your own will.
It shall be eaten the same day ye offer it, and on the morrow: and if aught remain until the third day, it shall be burnt in the fire.
And if it be eaten at all on the third day, it is abominable; it shall not be accepted."

So, eating offerings to god on the third day of their offering is on par as a man sleeping with another man?

Leviticus 19:28
"Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you"

how many christians do you know that have tatoos, but think gay marriage is not just wrong, but EVIL?

All citations are from the King James version. The dozens of other versions all have their own variations on the precise wordings.

In conclusion, my votes will always lie with the most rational and evenhanded candidate available. Your votes can lie elsewhere as you see fit.

.

I agree wholeheartedly on this point! No problems whatsoever with these. However, these are not uniquely christian values. I can choose to not murder, lie or steal and have no belief whatsoever in the supernatural. I take umbrage, however, when someone's particular belief system decrees that I not eat pork (bacon is good, mmkay?,) eat shellfish or wear clothing of two different types of cloth because their holy book says its wrong. At this point, however, we are cherry picking the values we're promoting. There are a LOT of rules and stipulations in the christian holy book and the underlying Abrahamic texts which have no relevance or bearing in modern times. See my 3 examples above.

Ummm... The examples you brought up may be followed by the Jews back then but they are not necessarily followed by Christians now. 

A lot of the laws from the Mosaic Old Testament has been superseded and replaced by Jesus in the New Testament. That said, yes, some Christians presently still choose to follow Old Testament guidelines though, perhaps to discover wisdom in some of those teachings.

For example, you bring up the topic of dietary laws. 

In Genesis 1, God gave Adam and Eve green plants only for food minus the fruit from the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil." After the fall, God forbade them from eating from the tree of life, lest they live forever in a fallen state.

In Genesis 9, after the great flood of Noah's time, God changed the rules and said it was okay to eat meat minus blood.

We see in the OT Leviticus that the Jews forbade eating of certain food because it made someone "unclean". 

In the New Testament, Jesus ruffles the feathers  of the Jewish religious leaders and clarifies that it was not what people ate that made them unclean but what came out of their mouths that made them "unclean".

Later in the New Testament, Paul clarifies that all food is clean and that it is okay to eat food unless doing so causes another believer to stumble.

In Revelation, it states that one day in the future, people will be allowed to eat from the "Tree of Life" again.

So, as in the example of eating bacon, you have to take what you read from the Bible in context of the whole book because God and the Bible are not static and still continue in the present and the future.

You may be surprised - both islam and christianity (and judaism) are based upon Abrahamic underpinnings, teachings and writings, and the vast majority of christian beliefs are the same as those held by muslims. The key and core exception is they believe jesus was a prophet while christians believe he was the son of god, elevating him beyond the other prophets.

The Jews and the Muslims share a common ancestor with Abraham.  The Jews trace their lineage to Abraham through Isaac (son through Sarah) while the Muslims trace their lineage to Abraham through Ishmael (son through Hagar). But there are MAJOR differences in their teachings and in their beliefs that it's not even funny. 

This difference is there at the very start where the Bible says that it was through Isaac to whom God will establish his kingdom, while Muslims say that it is through Ishmael. 

The God whom the Jews believe in (Yahweh) does not even resemble the deity that the Muslims believe in (Allah).  What Yaweh loves in the Bible, Allah in the Koran hates.  And what Allah loves in the Koran, Yahweh hates in the Bible.

The teachings in the Bible do not even look anywhere alike the teachings in the Koran.

So I do not know where you are getting your conclusions from about Abrahamic teachings and writings.  The original books in the Bible were from Moses, not Abraham.

Secularism differs from these (and any other rigid belief system) in that changes over time to reflect human kind's deepened and improved understanding of the universe without a supernatural attribution. For what it is worth, in my opinion people can believe whatever they want to believe. However, my votes will be cast as _I_ believe fit, just as yours should be cast as you see fit.

Fair enough. I can respect your belief and your choice.

I disagree with this point. Freedom of religion states unequivocally that people in this country can hold whatever belief system they want, allowing that they do not harm others. This means they can choose NO organized belief system. If someone chooses to believe in astrology, that is their right. If they choose to believe in animal spirits they can. If they want to believe in their own divinity, have at it. The line is drawn where they believe something and then try to force their beliefs on others. My statement in no way advocates one belief system over another.

Isn't this what I said?  Freedom of religion in America is where people are allowed to follow their religious beliefs without being persecuted by the government.  If you look at the history, the pilgrims in America (mostly Protestants) were fleeing religious persecution by the various monarchs and Catholic Church of Europe. The European monarchs would adopt an official religion (Roman Catholic, Anglican, etc) and those that were not of the same belief were getting persecuted and killed by the monarchs.

However, I also have the right to vote for the candidates I believe are fit to hold office. Someone that believes that the earth is 6,000 years old will not receive my vote, the same as someone that believes that Cthulu is real, the Easter Bunny actually hides easter eggs or Santa slides down the chimney on december 25th. An inflexible belief in mythology - ANY mythology - is an immediate vote for whoever is running against them, from me.

That is fine and we are all allowed to vote for whichever candidates we choose.

You've fallen into the trap of misunderstanding the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. From wikipedia - "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation." A critical point is that a scientific theory MUST be falsifiable, meaning there has to be some way to disprove it. For it to be an accepted scientific theory, as your example of evolution is, it must have successfully passed all falsifiability tests, meaning the test was attempted, but the theory was once again proven accurate. This has to be done over the long term, thus the "well-substantiated" and "based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation."

Again, from wikipedia: "A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon." The barriers to a hypothesis are much lower than a scientific theory. The theory of evolution is a theory, not a hypothesis.

I'm sorry but you lost me here.  A hypothesis is something that you test in an experiment.  But to say that a theory is infallible is ridiculous.

A scientific theory is used to explain a natural phenomenon until it is proven wrong or incomplete and replaced by something better later on.

Scientific theories are what we use to make a better sense of our physical world.  Underlying in this is an understanding that theories explain a few things well but does not always explain the whole thing.

For example, Newton's theory of gravity was later replaced by Einstein's theory of relativity, because while Newton's theory helped with mathematical computations in Physics, Einstein's relativity theory explained our natural world in a deeper way. It doesn't mean we stop using the formulas based on Newton's theory of gravity. We just realize it's not as accurate an explanation as people once thought it was. 

Then you go into quantum physics and realize that we know absolutely very little of our physical world, especially in the subatomic realm. It doesn't mean the quantum theories we have are not useful... They can approximate a phenomenon but we may not really have the correct model of our world.

Religious beliefs do not have to conflict with belief in the scientific process. Many of the best scientists in our history are very religious people and believe in the almighty creator.

Remember, science deals with the "what" of our empirical world while religion deals with the "why" of our existence. When science tries to go into the "why", it is pseudoscience and gets criticism even from very well-respected scientists themselves. 

As thinking beings, we want to make sense of it all and want the "what" of science and the "why" of our beliefs to be supportive of or congruent to each other.  But realize that things in the "why" realm cannot be proven using the scientific method because it is impossible to conduct our human existence and history as an experiment.  Besides, it doesn't make sense.

Again, you have fallen into a trap of words. Speciation (the evolution of a new species from a predecessor) occurs over a very long period of time - geologically long. Evolution occurs in very small steps - individual mutations which are possibly then passed to subsequent generations. It is the compound of multiple mutations over a geologically long span of time where we see new species. The small steps that comprise speciation are very simple and extraordinarily well-documented, though, so we can observe it on a human-discernable scale. For instance, mutations in fruit flies, bean plants and other fast growing and dying species is easily observed even without a lab. There are numerous observed and documented examples of longer term mutations which approach speciation: look up three-toed skinks, italian wall lizards and peppered moths.

I will look up about the three-tied skinks, Italian wall lizards and peppered moths. Thanks!

Scientists will never be able to observe evolution of a banana to a potato. They aren't even in the same branches of the 'tree' =) However, they certainly observe the minute genetic changes (evolution) that, in aggregate lead to speciation and have a very long and well documented "tree of life" of speciation from fossil records as a historical guide of how the process plays out over the necessary geologically long time spans.

You know, evolution is a theory but you'd have to consider that perhaps things did not come about as random as the theory of evolution makes it appear to be.

This example may sound a bit absurd but please bear with me for a minute.... Let's say you were born way into the future an somehow, you dug up several skeletons of pickup trucks, station wagons and full sized cars.  You could say, "oh yeah... Over a billion of years, because I see some variations in the skeleton structure, I believe that the truck evolved from the station wagon which evolved from the car. All of them are 4 wheeled creatures and they share very similar characteristics. It's very possible that they just mutated on their own over the millions and billions of years!"

But see... you forget that it's very possible that the car had an original designer.... Henry Ford. Where is your evidence of Henry Ford? You won't have it but it doesn't mean he's not real.

It is the same with our world.  Perhaps the commonality that you see in a monkey and a man did not come about because of evolution but because both monkey and man had the same architect / designer. 

There are a lot of power hungry, hypocritical people in all walks of life. How many of the politicians currently in office support a religious faith - ANY faith - then act counter to it's teachings?

Oh very many... Some Christian leaders included unfortunately. And Secularist leaders do it too, you know.  So what exactly makes secularist politicians so special?

I too, can cite scripture:

Luke 21:1-4
'And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury, and He saw also a certain poor widow putting in two mites. So He said, “Truly I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all; for all these out of their abundance have put in offerings for God, but she out of her poverty put in all the livelihood that she had.”'

and yet they do everything within their power to ensure their money is hoarded for their own purposes and work stridently to ensure those poorest in our society lose what welfare they currently have? The level of hypocrisy is astounding to me.

Yes, Jesus was pointing out the hearts of the poor widow vs the rich man.  Very profound lesson.  Jesus was very much against the hypocrisy of the self-righteous religious leaders of that time. 

Leviticus provides no end of excitement:

Leviticus 18:22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Leviticus 19:5-7
"And if ye offer a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the LORD, ye shall offer it at your own will.
It shall be eaten the same day ye offer it, and on the morrow: and if aught remain until the third day, it shall be burnt in the fire.
And if it be eaten at all on the third day, it is abominable; it shall not be accepted."

So, eating offerings to god on the third day of their offering is on par as a man sleeping with another man?

Eating 3-day old rotten food is probably not good for you. The book of Leviticus did write a lot about what made people "unclean".  A lot of it had to do with the Levites who were the priests and had to be sure they were "clean" when approaching God who is holy. . 

And God designed man to be together with  woman, not man with man, nor woman with woman.  That's why they called same sex an abomination to God and his intended purpose.

Leviticus 19:28
"Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you"

how many christians do you know that have tatoos, but think gay marriage is not just wrong, but EVIL?

Christians are not perfect people. No one is perfect except God. In fact many Christians led pretty messed up lives but later found salvation, forgiveness and redemption in Christ.

All citations are from the King James version. The dozens of other versions all have their own variations on the precise wordings.

In conclusion, my votes will always lie with the most rational and evenhanded candidate available. Your votes can lie elsewhere as you see fit.

Thanks!  Have a great week ahead!

Well, back in the day we could burn these people at the stake.

I guess this is the price we pay for a 'modern, civilized' society.

LOL. Thank goodness!

Ummm... The examples you brought up may be followed by the Jews back then but they are not necessarily followed by Christians now. 

Precisely my point. These strictures and proscriptions are there in the bible, yet some are strongly held (man with a man = bad) by modern day christians while others in the same book by the same author are ignored entirely (eating shellfish = bad) or even promoted (trimming your beard = bad.)

A lot of the laws from the Mosaic Old Testament has been superseded and replaced by Jesus in the New Testament. That said, yes, some Christians presently still choose to follow Old Testament guidelines though, perhaps to discover wisdom in some of those teachings.

For example, you bring up the topic of dietary laws. 

In Genesis 1, God gave Adam and Eve green plants only for food minus the fruit from the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil." After the fall, God forbade them from eating from the tree of life, lest they live forever in a fallen state.

In Genesis 9, after the great flood of Noah's time, God changed the rules and said it was okay to eat meat minus blood.

We see in the OT Leviticus that the Jews forbade eating of certain food because it made someone "unclean". 

In the New Testament, Jesus ruffles the feathers  of the Jewish religious leaders and clarifies that it was not what people ate that made them unclean but what came out of their mouths that made them "unclean".

Later in the New Testament, Paul clarifies that all food is clean and that it is okay to eat food unless doing so causes another believer to stumble.

In Revelation, it states that one day in the future, people will be allowed to eat from the "Tree of Life" again.

So, as in the example of eating bacon, you have to take what you read from the Bible in context of the whole book because God and the Bible are not static and still continue in the present and the future.

The Jews and the Muslims share a common ancestor with Abraham.  The Jews trace their lineage to Abraham through Isaac (son through Sarah) while the Muslims trace their lineage to Abraham through Ishmael (son through Hagar). But there are MAJOR differences in their teachings and in their beliefs that it's not even funny. 

This difference is there at the very start where the Bible says that it was through Isaac to whom God will establish his kingdom, while Muslims say that it is through Ishmael. 

The God whom the Jews believe in (Yahweh) does not even resemble the deity that the Muslims believe in (Allah).  What Yaweh loves in the Bible, Allah in the Koran hates.  And what Allah loves in the Koran, Yahweh hates in the Bible.

The teachings in the Bible do not even look anywhere alike the teachings in the Koran.

So I do not know where you are getting your conclusions from about Abrahamic teachings and writings.  The original books in the Bible were from Moses, not Abraham.

Both the koran and the bible speak of the same god revealed to abraham. All of them hold god to be the only deity (christianity differs slightly in that it also believes in the divinity of jesus but as an aspect of god-as-trinity as opposed to a separate entity,) the transcendent creator of all things and the source of morality-based laws. Angles & demons as well as many of the same figures in the bible are present in the koran, bible and torah, though some have different roles or lessons. All of them have a belief in salvation through correct beliefs and good deeds. There are many commonalities and many differences, but the bases for all 3 are the same as presented above.

I did not intend for this to be a comparative discussion between different mythologies. For me, any immutable belief in a mythology is grounds for voting for the other candidate.

Fair enough. I can respect your belief and your choice.

And I yours. 

Isn't this what I said?  Freedom of religion in America is where people are allowed to follow their religious beliefs without being persecuted by the government.  If you look at the history, the pilgrims in America (mostly Protestants) were fleeing religious persecution by the various monarchs and Catholic Church of Europe. The European monarchs would adopt an official religion (Roman Catholic, Anglican, etc) and those that were not of the same belief were getting persecuted and killed by the monarchs.

To be honest, you said:

Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion. Freedom of religion is freedom to practice one's religion without persecution by the government... which is what your statement seems to advocate.... persecute religious believers and automatically say that they are unfit to lead and that only secular people are fit to lead.

Nowhere in my statement did I advocate persecution of those that do believe. I only assert that religious freedom means noone is forcing me to believe any particular religious doctrine.

I'm sorry but you lost me here.  A hypothesis is something that you test in an experiment.  But to say that a theory is infallible is ridiculous.

I never said a theory is infallible. In fact, I said exactly the opposite - for a scientific theory to be accepted it HAS to be fallible, just not yet proven wrong. It HAS to have the potential of being wrong, but the vast majority of experimentation, data and analysis has to have proven it correct instead of wrong.

A scientific theory is used to explain a natural phenomenon until it is proven wrong or incomplete and replaced by something better later on.

Scientific theories are what we use to make a better sense of our physical world.  Underlying in this is an understanding that theories explain a few things well but does not always explain the whole thing.

For example, Newton's theory of gravity was later replaced by Einstein's theory of relativity, because while Newton's theory helped with mathematical computations in Physics, Einstein's relativity theory explained our natural world in a deeper way. It doesn't mean we stop using the formulas based on Newton's theory of gravity. We just realize it's not as accurate an explanation as people once thought it was. 

Then you go into quantum physics and realize that we know absolutely very little of our physical world, especially in the subatomic realm. It doesn't mean the quantum theories we have are not useful... They can approximate a phenomenon but we may not really have the correct model of our world.

That is the beauty of scientific and rational thought. As new information comes to light, old understandings and orders are shaken up and scrapped or extended with the new information. Sometimes this means old theories - theories that were very well supported until this point - need to be scrapped. This capability is the entire basis of science. Sometimes it is painful - just ask da Vinci =)

Religious beliefs do not have to conflict with belief in the scientific process. Many of the best scientists in our history are very religious people and believe in the almighty creator.

Remember, science deals with the "what" of our empirical world while religion deals with the "why" of our existence. When science tries to go into the "why", it is pseudoscience and gets criticism even from very well-respected scientists themselves. 

As thinking beings, we want to make sense of it all and want the "what" of science and the "why" of our beliefs to be supportive of or congruent to each other.  But realize that things in the "why" realm cannot be proven using the scientific method because it is impossible to conduct our human existence and history as an experiment.  Besides, it doesn't make sense.

Agreed wholeheartedly. Science does not attempt to address the "why" of life, only the "what." My preference for political candidate is for those that deal in the realities of the world without foisting their own "why" upon everyone else.

You know, evolution is a theory but you'd have to consider that perhaps things did not come about as random as the theory of evolution makes it appear to be.

This example may sound a bit absurd but please bear with me for a minute.... Let's say you were born way into the future an somehow, you dug up several skeletons of pickup trucks, station wagons and full sized cars.  You could say, "oh yeah... Over a billion of years, because I see some variations in the skeleton structure, I believe that the truck evolved from the station wagon which evolved from the car. All of them are 4 wheeled creatures and they share very similar characteristics. It's very possible that they just mutated on their own over the millions and billions of years!"

But see... you forget that it's very possible that the car had an original designer.... Henry Ford. Where is your evidence of Henry Ford? You won't have it but it doesn't mean he's not real.

We have documentation of Henry Ford's existence, including photographs and other historical documentation. We also have factories where the vehicles are produced, modern day examples as well as historical examples of the vehicles themselves and their use. We know, understand and have minutely detailed documentation covering all aspects of vehicles from the absolute very beginning. The likelihood some of this information will last in the future, to be examined and hopefully understood by some future archaeologist.

It is the same with our world.  Perhaps the commonality that you see in a monkey and a man did not come about because of evolution but because both monkey and man had the same architect / designer. 

Except we have no documentation or historical evidence to support a unified Creator, other than creation myths in various holy books. In fact, we have ample evidence of the sloooow process of mutation & evolution from small mammal to simian to human and zero evidence to the contrary that isn't supernaturally provided.

Oh very many... Some Christian leaders included unfortunately. And Secularist leaders do it too, you know.  So what exactly makes secularist politicians so special?

Nothing whatsoever separates a strongly religious but hypocritical politician from a secular but hypocritical politician. My reason for voting for those that do not strictly hold to any particular mythology is the hope that they would make decisions based upon the "what"s of the world and not the "why"s. Their particular flavor of "why" is irrelevant to their function as a politician, or it should be, in my opinion.

Yes, Jesus was pointing out the hearts of the poor widow vs the rich man.  Very profound lesson.  Jesus was very much against the hypocrisy of the self-righteous religious leaders of that time. 

Eating 3-day old rotten food is probably not good for you. The book of Leviticus did write a lot about what made people "unclean".  A lot of it had to do with the Levites who were the priests and had to be sure they were "clean" when approaching God who is holy. . 

And God designed man to be together with  woman, not man with man, nor woman with woman.  That's why they called same sex an abomination to God and his intended purpose.

And yet Luke 16:15 reviles the love of money as an abomination, using the same terminology used in Leviticus in regards to men lying with men. Why is it christians aren't calling for MORE welfare instead of fighting it tooth and nail? Or outlawing for-profit corporations? Why is it sexual relations between consenting adults deserves the attention of those that profess to believe in the scripture, yet so many other acts with the same "abominable" judgement in the bible are ignored or even supported? It is this type of hypocrisy that pushes me, personally, away from supporting anyone that adheres to this particular system of beliefs.

Christians are not perfect people. No one is perfect except God. In fact many Christians led pretty messed up lives but later found salvation, forgiveness and redemption in Christ.

Noone is perfect - christian, hindu, buddhist, muslim, atheistic, agnostic - doesn't matter. We're all people and have to live with our own imperfections and those of others. We can only strive to reduce our imperfections in whichever way suits us and society.

Thanks!  Have a great week ahead!

You too, and thanks for the lively discussion!

Freedom From Religion Foundation

A fine, upstanding, secular group made up of law-abiding, peaceful human beings!

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/08/athiest-group-plants-ied-at-war-memorial-cross/


Someone ignited an improvised explosive device next to a war memorial cross that a prominent atheist group
wanted removed from a public park in Coos Bay, Ore. [/url]

Freedom From Religion Foundation

A fine, upstanding, secular group made up of law-abiding, peaceful human beings!

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/08/athiest-group-plants-ied-at-war-memorial-cross/


Someone ignited an improvised explosive device next to a war memorial cross that a prominent atheist group
wanted removed from a public park in Coos Bay, Ore. [/url]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/bobby-joe-rogers-10-year-sentence-firebombing-abortion-clinic_n_1940670.html

And a fine, upstanding good christian man has been sentenced to 10 years in prison for firebombing an abortion clinic in Florida. The same clinic, in fact, where another fine, upstanding good christian man murdered a doctor and a companion in cold blood back in 1994.

Why are we talking in theory about Hawaii 'possibly' doing this and the 2a violations that 'could' result?
In the post sandyhook GC madness, Hawaii SB69 included such mental health requirements - so they tried it, and they will again.
Further, the NY SAFE act resulted in almost immediate 2a violations as well as 4a and federal HIPAA violations - so we know how such laws will be used to confiscate our firearms; how registration = confiscation.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/09/a-form-of-gun-confiscation-has-reportedly-begun-in-new-york-state-heres-the-justification-being-used/

Crass, thank you for a thoughtful discussion so far on such a potentially heated topic. I will reply to your post later but let me leave this here for now.  :Shaka:
------
Have you heard about Pascal's Wager?

If not, chances are, you're heard of the great mathematician and philosopher, Blaise Pascal.

He suggested living as if there is a God is a better wager than living as if there is no God.

Here is his wager, written out:

"If you live as if God doesn't exist and you're right, you just die and go to your grave.

But if you live as if God does not exist, and you're wrong, you go into eternal misery in hell.

Conversely, if you live as if God does exist and you're wrong, then you would just die and go to the grave.

But if you live as if God does exist and you're right, you have just hit the jackpot for an eternity in heaven."

Pascal's point was: Why not take a gamble that there is a God?

If you're wrong, you lose nothing, and you've had a good life here.

But if you're right, and God is real, you'll have eternity to be thankful that you chose wisely.

No wonder King David wrote, " The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” (Psalm 14:1)
-----

Ok back to topic.

Believing in a God or a Supreme Being or Force.
I agree with the logic.

Believing in Jesus Christ as the savior... ( or any of the other prophets )
Now you've narrowed your chances down to 1 in 5 or 1 in 6.
Seems like a bad bet. ( considering we are going on rationale and not faith )

Though shalt not follow a false prophet.

Taoism, supreme force runs through everything.
Buddhism, not really sure as there are many sects.
Judaism, prophet still coming.
Christianity, Jesus came and you must accept him or go to hell.
Mormonism, the whatever number has already been chosen.
Muslim, Mohammed is the true prophet.

Etc...Etc...Etc...

Satan's number one tool could be the false prophet.

Believe in the Supreme Force and eliminate the middle man.
Follows your Pascal's Wager theory.

Not trying to offend anyone, just being logical. ( and hopefully a little spiritual )
 

Not offended at all. Thanks for that thoughtful perspective, aieahound.

Following the train of thought, let me highlight Jesus for a second. Of all the religious figures in history, Jesus is the only one who claimed divinity and equal nature with God.  No one else has claimed that he is God... Not Buddha, not Muhammad, or any other religious figures.

"I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."  Doesn't get much more specific than that, doesn't it?

So, Jesus is either really really wrong (a madman?) or really really right (THE Messiah?) At least, it deserves a little digging into, doesn't it?  From a logical perspective at least.

So in a way, Jesus statement can be a religious "theory" or if you want "hypothesis", in the sense that it is stated, now how do you prove it false?

may the Force be with you, AHound
http://2ahawaii.com/Smileys/extended/azn.gif

Believing in a God or a Supreme Being or Force.
I agree with the logic.

Believing in Jesus Christ as the savior... ( or any of the other prophets )
Now you've narrowed your chances down to 1 in 5 or 1 in 6.
Seems like a bad bet. ( considering we are going on rationale and not faith )

Though shalt not follow a false prophet.

Taoism, supreme force runs through everything.
Buddhism, not really sure as there are many sects.
Judaism, prophet still coming.
Christianity, Jesus came and you must accept him or go to hell.
Mormonism, the whatever number has already been chosen.
Muslim, Mohammed is the true prophet.

Etc...Etc...Etc...

Satan's number one tool could be the false prophet.

Believe in the Supreme Force and eliminate the middle man.
Follows your Pascal's Wager theory.

Not trying to offend anyone, just being logical. ( and hopefully a little spiritual )
 

Unfortunately, there are no "one size fits all" politicians For me, the tragedy that would have been Paul Ryan or Sarah Palin in national office and the overall republican platform of religious-oriented dogmatic legislation of morals absolutely precluded me from voting for them. Obama has HUGE issues. Had McCain picked someone less frothing-at-the-mouth retarded than Palin I would've voted for him over Obama with no second guesses or doubts. As it was, both of the recent republican tickets were unacceptable to me, even though they supported the typical second amendment republican stances. The democratic tickets posed fewer overarching concerns, even considering their gun control platform.

I don't believe for a second you own firearms or that you are anything but a lifelong leftist anti-American christian hating atheist troll, because it is improbable that if you were not that, that given a choice between Obama and McCain - a choice between a then-apparent American hating Marxist, Islamist & homegrown terrorist indoctrinated demagogue, like Obama, and a (as you indicate) desirable candidate who comes with an undesirable running mate, like McCain - you'd pick Obama.  Further telltale evidence of this is the particular vitriolic language and pathologic execration you reserve for Palin alone; language pathognomonic to the disease that is the left; language only they have used for Palin.  oops.....someone's showing juuust a little crazy left wing troll ankle in the forum...

I don't believe for a second you own firearms or that you are anything but a lifelong leftist anti-American christian hating atheist troll,

+1

My impression exactly.  These sorts pop up just a bit too conveniently to be other than trolls out to beat the drum for Zero.

*shrug* believe what you want. The fact is I support the second amendment, which is why I'm here, but it's not the most important thing to me. I'm not a "single issue voter." You seem to think that, in order to support the second amendment one must also support all of the other typically conservative standpoints on the various issues. I don't fit that mold, but that doesn't make me a "lifelong leftist anti-American christian hating atheist troll." Fact is I was born Baptist, attended sunday school and everything. My wife is christian, though not particularly devout, I'm not atheist (I identify as agnostic - I KNOW there's a higher power but I don't subscribe to any rigidly defined belief system surrounding it) and I don't "hate" anyone except for hypocrites. Where do you get that I'm "anti-american?"

I don't own a gun, but I have gone through the LIFE handgun course with my son, went to the most recent SSF and have poked around in the classifieds looking for a firearm that would be appropriate for me and my family. If, for some reason, that makes you uncomfortable I feel sorry for you. Hopefully you'll get over it and we can continue with the relatively friendly dialog 

+1

My impression exactly.  These sorts pop up just a bit too conveniently to be other than trolls out to beat the drum for Zero.

You got it.
And look at the 180 he does in his response: first we're treated to a gratuitous, personal attack on Palin and Christian republicans in general; then in a complete reversal in tone we get an appeal to reason and civil, friendly discourse. Typical!

Crass!, FYI: so far, I had spent about 1-2 hours each time twice now typing up a response to your last post, only for those responses to get lost somehow with the tapatalk app crashing unexpectedly and the Firefox browser tab closing unexpectedly and losing everything I wrote.  I normally would chalk that up to tough luck, but I know better that there perhaps is a spiritual aspect going on with this.  Anyway, I will try again and reply another day.  Take care!