Defending the Truth

OMG. Being in the Marine Corps with your illness made you a more stronger person, FX. Your motto is very true.

My "Marine Corps" experience wasn't typical. I was a electronics tech. No big deal. But what I did bring from the experience was I met a lot of different people. And went to a few different countries. And I got to live in Okinawa for 18 months. That life experience was invaluable. For example, I learned to see past the "black and white" that we have in this country. Everybody needs to get away from this for a little while to see just how stupid the slavery times have made this whole country. Black and white people need to get over themselves and move on. There's a much larger threat out there and they hate "Americans" not any particular race here.

I'm so grateful to you for mentioning this myt.
It provides me an ideal opportunity to reinforce my point.
#1:
"Words mean things." Rush Limbaugh

Your above quoted comment suggests my post is in some way (any way) subjective.
Hardly!

Just consider the objective facts.
Religion, and superstition are essentially the same.
Technically, the former is a subset of the latter; but why split that hair?
It is technically correct; it is factually objective (NOT subjective) to recognize supernatural religion as "superstition".
"Insane" (extracted from the definition) is the correct term to apply to those that make absolutely extraordinary claims; with absolutely no proof whatsoever.
If it is within your power to do so sir or ma'am, I sincerely hope you will do so as skillfully as possible.
That's what I thought.
a) How has "secular humanism" crept in here? I have not made claim to "secular humanism" in this thread. In fact, I believe I was quite explicit in stating that I made no claim at all; other than that the assertions of the supernaturalists, ie the superstitious, are unproved. Further, the burden of proof is on them to prove; NOT me to disprove.

b) Regarding "no basis in objective morality"; piffle.
First of all, what's "objective" about the morality the Bible and its ostensible followers tout?
Second, before you make this "no basis" assertion of yours, you should first study Freud, Jung, Skinner, and fundamental principles & history of British Common Law. Studying the works of the ethicists might also help guide you on this. But for you to assume there is no basis, simply because you don't understand the basis there is, is a demonstration of your ignorance; not an objective, factual observation.
Piffle.
a) "She, and a man" [YOUR assertion] made a choice to have sex. If you consider the details of such agreements, seldom do they include specific details on child support. And without documentation, even if there were some child support agreement, it would not be likely to be legally binding.
b) It is a fundamental premise of Christianity that a woman can become pregnant without having sex.
Spare me your "mountains and oceans" myt.
Just one! Please just cite ONE "shred" of "proof" of any manifest supernatural anything.
Take it up with them.
I have made no atheist claim here.
I'm on explicit, unambiguous record as being agnostic here.
How could I possibly have made it any clearer?
Have I suggested otherwise?
Splendid.
That's your opinion. And the 1st Amendment promises your right to exercise that opinion.
It does so as follows:
However:
The same 1st Amendment also promises my right to exclude your exercise from imposing upon me.
It does so as follows:
* Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

Elegant as always, sear.

However, I would like to counter the point myt contended that we live in a material society. I'm assuming this definition is pertaining to the philosophical sense of the word materialism?

Myt, if you're attempting to say that this society is primarily materialist (in that most of it's citizens focus merely on the material as measurements of their lives; or, they believe that one is to be measured on the basis of how large a house they own, what kind of car they have, or how beautiful they look), then I would agree with you. And in this sense, I am very anti-materialist.

Even with the above granted, in a more philosophical context of the word I believe we live in a very immaterial society insofar as the average individual is unappreciative of the true value of things material. Someone who is appreciative of material would be fascinated in the material reality before them as opposed to attempt to gain some kind of spiritual (or otherwise unseen) gain as one's personal attainment. In other words, a materialist in this conception is more appreciative of the here and now as opposed to seeing it as a mere means to some other kind of spiritual attainment. In this sense, I'm very materialist. And I am proud of it. I believe -no, I know through scientific understanding- that our ego (in terms of consciousness, feelings, etc.) are material concoctions of our brains. With the death of our brains, so dies the ego. Whether if there is a further ulterior mode of highly subtle consciousness (spirit or whatever underlying the material manifestations), free of all qualifications of ego, I believe is still up for debate but also completely irrelevant.

Even if there is some kind of ulterior consciousness underlying our existences (call it soul or spirit or whatever), it is irrelevant to my point because consciousness is still a material concoction. When you die (much like before you were born), everything percieving as your ego (memories, emotions, etc.) will die with you. I think the realization of this reality makes life more important. When I moved away from my more spiritual beliefs of God and an impermanent inherently existing spirit; things started to become in focus and a more compassionate and appreciative outlook was possible. I actually found a more powerful and real set of morality in the realization of a more secular humanistic understanding as opposed to Christianity!

Anyway, in retrospect, I apologize for some of my rather crude and cold language when I was trying to illustrate my points before. This issue, as I'm sure with you, gets me excited and I take it to heart!

Anyway, I took nothing personal as I'm used to that kind of debate now, and I hope you didn't either. But I believe it was definitely a more refreshing and important debate as opposed to the more shallow debates of politics, I must say. I thank you for that.

I realize it's not your burden here Kat.
None the less, I'd be interested if any believer here would care to offer us a definition for the word "soul".

And while at it, some insight into the disjunction between the concept of soul, the millennia since creation, and the human population explosion.

For example, when the Old Testament was first written, what was Earth's total living human population? ~3 million?
How many are on Earth now? ~6 billion?
If god created a reservoir of souls at Creation, to supply the accelerating flood of newly (& currently) created human bodies proliferating on Earth, what have they been up to low these millennia?

Or has Genesis mislead us into thinking that after god's 7th day of rest, he got back to the factory work of producing souls, to meet ongoing (increasing) demand?

And if god is still producing souls, is the production "just in time" production (consistent with the Japanese industrial model)?
Or are souls being warehoused someplace?
I might quibble with Fugelsang's arithmetic here. But his underlying point seems worth considering.

What kills me is that some people can put soooo much abstract thought together to try and disprove some biblical concepts just so that they can rationalize behaviours that would be wrong even if the bible didn't exist.

Kat,
By "materialism" yes, in a sense I do me the aquisition of things... and making said aquisition the ultimate end, goal or measue of "success."

But I also mean it in a more subtle way. When I said religion has become materialistic, I mean far too literal, hung up on the supposed attributes and powers of the central figure or figures... rather than actually taking to heart what was taught and the self-examination and changes it calls one to make.

For example, the idea that Jesus supposedly did all these nifty things like walk on water, make dead people come back to life and then himself get back up three days after he died has become more important that the principles of the Sermon on the Mount. IMO, Jesus wasn't sent and didn't come here to show off nifty supernateral powers... the whole real purpose of His mission can be summed up in the Sermon on the Mount... and the INWARD transformation it calls people to. Spiritual growth is WORK.. and requires SACRIFICE. It requires dillegence and humility. Salvation is not an event, it's a never ending process of learning and effort.
But smoe people don't want that. They want a water-walking "super-Jesus" to come solve all their problems for them and make sure their name is on the list to get into Heaven. They want a "one prayer and I'm SAVED" solution.. in much the same way they want "one-stop shopping" at Wal-Mart.

Sear,
In that sense religion CAN be superstition. But that's not real religion. That's sort of been my point all along. That's a mockery and an aping of religion.
And it's a big, easy target. And I think cynics such as yourself love to take cheap potshots at that big, easy target, and simply ignore the rest.

Your claims to have the market cornered on rational thought ring as hollow with me as the fundamentalist's claims to have the market cornered on God's grace and salvation. IMO, it's just different sides of the same coin.. that being a supposed superiority over others.. and the right to call them such things as "loony."

There is PLENTY of reason and "evidence" for a rational, sober-thinkng person to conclude the God does indeed exist. Hence, many rational, highly-intelligent and intellectually prudent people believe in God, and have good reason for doing so. We just don't belive in a big "old man in the sky," so to speak...

And if you're not willing to at least admit that, than you are, IMO, just as self-deluded as the religious fanatics you so vehmently argue against.

Well, who else would have so much problem with religion than someone who wants religious people to "accept" them? All rules have exceptions, but for the most part, the only people that have a problem with "religious people" are people doing things that the "religious people" find detestable.