Conquer Club

john9blue wrote:

Backglass wrote:

Oh, hey, I have a website to go to now.



EDIT: Wow, the guy has an agenda. I'm sure the comics would be funny if I could ignore the straw man fallacies and only read the ones that supported my viewpoints.

Hey, it's not all about beating up on Christians. I found this one funny:

Haven't heard anyone mentioning astrology as a religion, there is a lot of people who believe that astrology influence us!

john9blue wrote: Atheists don't even HAVE a hypothesis, they simply reject each one presented as impossible, even ones that theoretically could be true.

Atheist explanation of the creating of the world is that materia was created through energy tightly compressing into one little area until it the big bang finally occured. The energy who inturn created materia is explained to be created out of nothing, (this is one of the vaguest of the atheistic theories but that is the best theory to a very hard question, "How can anything at all exist if no one made it" "It made itself through a natural process we so far know very little about" )

That's a theory!

jonesthecurl wrote:The "god supporters" say this:

Everything that exists has a cause/maker.
The universe exists
Therefore the universe has a cause or maker.

Then add this:
Nothing can be its own cause
Therefore the universe is not its own cause
therefore the universe was caused by somethign outside itself.

They name this cause "god", then somehow decide that it's their particular version of the Christian God (that bit gets a bit fuzzy).

However if we go back over this, and substiture "god" for "the universe" theen the logic is as sound as it ever was.
In the first part, the opposite is also true : anything that did not have a cause or maker cannot exist.
This shows that either (a) god had a maker or (b) god does not exist.

Except God is defined as the supreme creator. If we don't have God, we've got no end in sight for our analogy. Either that, or we define the Universe as being simply there, without a creator. Even then, you can't rule out a Pantheistic God (although Occam's Razor might well do away with that).

Balsiefen wrote:The problem is that the chances of the wager working out is dismal. Pick the wrong religion and your screwed. And there are so many religions that the chances of it being a single one are tiny. Why should it even be a god that mankind knows of? or one that even cares? Our galaxy contains 400 billion stars, there being around a billion known galaxies. Better to accept the possibility of all things and live by your own standards and wait and see than to channel your efforts into a single religions demands.

Many religions are similar. It might well be that God rewards those who show their ability to open their mind to the possibility of the divine. I also have a hard time believing that all who are not Christian are going to Hell, but something is better than nothing.

Balsiefen wrote:What do you mean atheists (and by atheists I assume you mean science) have no hypothesis? There are hundreds. the point of science is not to build cathedrals to their hypothesis until they are reliably proven, and to base them on some kind of known fact in the first place. Besides, give science a chance, it has been making discoveries at a heck of a speed lately but unlike religion where everything is solved with a simple goddidit, so far every discovery leads to a new and deeper question. A scientific "Theory of everything" is not something that happens overnight.

Just because religions answer questions that science has not yet achieved to its own satisfaction doesn't mean that they are more likely to be right or that science never will answer it's question.

That's just your personal estimation of the power of science, though. Here's a problem I see: where do you go to find these answers? Will the Higgs boson tell us how the Universe is created? How about going through a black hole intact? But who created the Higgs boson and the black hole?

Besides, it's easy enough to believe in God and still make discoveries about the Universe. It's annoying trying to talk to an atheist if they think religion is inherently detrimental to scientific progress. It's not.

AAFitz wrote:very well explained, and let me add to it although its slightly redundant, that science presents is findings in the form of a theory, until it is proven. It does not brigde the gap with blind faith, and keeps an open mind to other possibilities. And certainly suggesting atheists dont have a hypothesis, is absolutely ridiculous. And certainly there many atheists concede that there actually could be a supernatural being in charge of everything, they simply do not believe in one.

Except a theory is blind faith! If you're a scientist, you think, "maybe this is how the Universe was created", and hope that science will someday prove you right.

If you're a theist, you say "maybe the Universe was created by an eternal being", and hope that science will someday prove you right.

If you're an atheist, you say "maybe the Universe was created by something besides an eternal being" or "maybe the Universe wasn't created at all", and hope that science will someday prove you right.

I for one am not very impressed by the negativity and vagueness of the atheists' two theories. Unless I'm unaware of some of the latest theories and someone would like to bring me up to date?

AAFitz wrote:I am constantly amazed that so many people cant understand the fact that atheists only share one thing in common and that is they do not believe in a supernatural being or force in charge of everything. Beyond that, the theories, and beliefs may range as widely as those in the relgious sector.

Lol... I concur. I have noticed that many atheists have long hair...

AAFitz wrote:What you probably will find more often, and this is speculation, is that an atheist is more open to different ideas and possibities, than almost any religious person. A religious person, typically believes in a paticular god, a paticular history, and accounting of what that god requires and has done. An atheist is not necessarily bound by any such faith. They may simply not believe in a supernatural force...but accept that nearly any explaination is possible, and form their beliefs from the information around them, and not just from what theyve been told by others that already have made up their minds as to how everything works.

Well, geez, man, practice what you preach. The only common link between theists is that we believe in a deity. Even though we have beliefs, many of us recognize that just about anything's possible. Maybe someday Odin, Thor, and Freyr will come back and punish us. I dunno.

You've got the creation question, where theists and atheists differ. Then, you've got just about everything else, where science rules and it doesn't mean squat whether you believe in God or not (unless you hold a question to fall under the same category as the creation question, in accordance with your religion). If science proves you wrong, then you modify your beliefs. If it is proven that God doesn't exist, then you can bet that I'll stop believing in Him. But for you to say that the religious ignore the information around them and only know what others tell them is ignorant and unfair.

And, for what it's worth, I'm largely disregarding what others have told me for this argument and am going by my own thoughts on the matter.

Napoleon Ier wrote:No, the cosmological argument actually can be rephrased in such a way as to be based solely on the premise that the universe is contingent, and hence requires an incontingent (ontologically necessary) cause, an Aristotelian "Prime Mover", if you like.

Well, seeing your post came straight after mine, I thought it might be a direct reply, and so I suppressed my usual floccinaucinihilipilification of your posts and read it.

You are correct that the above can be done - that is merely to hold that at this point in the discussion, you agree with my surmise in a similar thread: Event 1 is by definition the first event. There is no necessity to call Event 1 "god", we just say "this is the first thing that happened - it had, by definition, no cause".
Thus, to use simpler phrasing than yours, "something can come from nothing. But only the once."

But sir, may i ask you how God was created.

God goes against the fundamental laws the same as the Big Bang theory. Therefore,i state that Christians are no less sure of how the universe bean than Atheists, but they also choose to waste time worshiping a supreme being that may or may not exist.

you have faith that God exists, i have faith that he does not exist.

tl;dr Atheists and Christians both end at the same point of it had to come from something.

Kingdroid wrote:But sir, may i ask you how God was created.

God goes against the fundamental laws the same as the Big Bang theory. Therefore,i state that Christians are no less sure of how the universe bean than Atheists, but they also choose to waste time worshiping a supreme being that may or may not exist.

you have faith that God exists, i have faith that he does not exist.

tl;dr Atheists and Christians both end at the same point of it had to come from something.

read the post above your one, especially the last sentence. Also read the post it's replying to. Both aver, from different points of view, that we cannot conclude that "it had to come from something" is a foregone conclusion.

jonesthecurl wrote:

Kingdroid wrote:But sir, may i ask you how God was created.

God goes against the fundamental laws the same as the Big Bang theory. Therefore,i state that Christians are no less sure of how the universe bean than Atheists, but they also choose to waste time worshiping a supreme being that may or may not exist.

you have faith that God exists, i have faith that he does not exist.

tl;dr Atheists and Christians both end at the same point of it had to come from something.

read the post above your one, especially the last sentence. Also read the post it's replying to. Both aver, from different points of view, that we cannot conclude that "it had to come from something" is a foregone conclusion.

I read it after it

but that was a reply to ur very first post

and in the end, you just proved why Christians are no more right than Atheists again yourself ( i think u even recognized it and admitted it)

but on the top of this, alot of bad things are done in the name of religion,,but as was said in another thread you can't do something in disbelief of something

jonesthecurl wrote:floccinaucinihilipilification

Kingdroid wrote:but on the top of this, alot of bad things are done in the name of religion,,but as was said in another thread you can't do something in disbelief of something

The fact remains that Christian morality helps many people make what are considered by most to be "correct" decisions when the absence of religion would lead them to do otherwise.

john9blue wrote:Except God is defined as the supreme creator. If we don't have God, we've got no end in sight for our analogy. Either that, or we define the Universe as being simply there, without a creator. Even then, you can't rule out a Pantheistic God (although Occam's Razor might well do away with that).

ok, now read what you wrote again.
Done? What did you notice?
It's pretty easy to spot, you even made it bold. "God" is defined as the "supreme creator", I take it that means a creator that does not need to be created. But what if others define "God" differently, as a being that needs a creator as much as anything else? Definitions of words are something that's very much relative to humans. If you start arguing from the definition you can at most have a hypothetical discussion about what could follow if such-and-such were the case, but you can't define something into existence.

Except a theory is blind faith! If you're a scientist, you think, "maybe this is how the Universe was created", and hope that science will someday prove you right.

If you're a theist, you say "maybe the Universe was created by an eternal being", and hope that science will someday prove you right.

If you're an atheist, you say "maybe the Universe was created by something besides an eternal being" or "maybe the Universe wasn't created at all", and hope that science will someday prove you right.

I for one am not very impressed by the negativity and vagueness of the atheists' two theories. Unless I'm unaware of some of the latest theories and someone would like to bring me up to date?

I'd say a scientist thinks "maybe this is how the universe came about, now let's see if this agrees with mathematical models, experimental physics and what we can generally observe about the world".
Not much hoping there, but a lot of looking for explanations and more interesting questions.

john9blue wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:floccinaucinihilipilification

Kingdroid wrote:but on the top of this, alot of bad things are done in the name of religion,,but as was said in another thread you can't do something in disbelief of something

The fact remains that Christian morality helps many people make what are considered by most to be "correct" decisions when the absence of religion would lead them to do otherwise.

no it doesn't

There ar eplenty of Christians who don't follow moral values, the same as there are many Atheists who don't.

you can't tell me you've never "sinned".

An atheist can tell you he ahsn't because he doesn't believe in sinning.

also, Christians and Atheists have the same amount of moral convictions, just one (Christians) sue these to persecute other people, even other religious people.

also, to rpely to another post:

Believing that the universe is no more or less optimistic, but it does restrict your life to the confines of what your religion tells you to do.

john9blue wrote:The fact remains that Christian morality helps many people make what are considered by most to be "correct" decisions when the absence of religion would lead them to do otherwise.

Holier than thou, Grade A bullshit.

Absence of religion only "leads you" to think for yourself. Now if you are saying that some people can't handle thinking for themselves and need a guidebook to teach them right from wrong, I would agree. Some people need religion as they aren't capable of doing this on their own. But to say it's the religion doing it and not the person is bullshit. It's like the old joke. "If you're an asshole when you get drunk, it's not because of the liquor. It's because you're an asshole".

Shall we point out the MANY christians who cheat on their wives, steal, kill or otherwise "Sin"? I would counter that religion gives many a free pass. Repent and all is forgiven, etc. But that's different I suppose.

Bottom Line: One must not be religious in order to lead a good, moral life.

Backglass wrote:

john9blue wrote:The fact remains that Christian morality helps many people make what are considered by most to be "correct" decisions when the absence of religion would lead them to do otherwise.

Holier than thou, Grade A bullshit.

Absence of religion only "leads you" to think for yourself. Now if you are saying that some people can't handle thinking for themselves and need a guidebook to teach them right from wrong, I would agree. Some people need religion as they aren't capable of doing this on their own. But to say it's the religion doing it and not the person is bullshit. It's like the old joke. "If you're an asshole when you get drunk, it's not because of the liquor. It's because you're an asshole".

Shall we point out the MANY christians who cheat on their wives, steal, kill or otherwise "Sin"? I would counter that religion gives many a free pass. Repent and all is forgiven, etc. But that's different I suppose.

Bottom Line: One must not be religious in order to lead a good, moral life.

read my post

a less-literate replica

lgoasklucyl wrote:

john9blue wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:No, but you do have to be a theist to have any sort of workable and reasonable definition of "good."

I don't think so... lots of atheists have their own set of personal values, as do I. Like I said, most of what Jesus calls "good" I do also, but who am I to say that anyone's code of ethics is "wrong"?

Thank you John. It's comments like OA's which just assume everyone/thing different from what he practices/believes to instantaneously be wrong. He knows nothing of my idea of 'good' or the personal values I have. In fact, many of my personal values coincide with the 'good' preached by many religions. Just because I don't receive these values from a book/attend a ceremony of worship makes me wrong?

In fact, this is one key reason the West is so often termed "arrogant" because other places really and truly do have differant basis' for their beliefs, differant values.... and we only proclaim to admit this.

In fact, many atheistic arguments actually confirm this. I would not call this site representative of any group, but Look at the numbers who say, essentially "I don't like who God must be" .. so I don't believe God exists. Or some version of "I have basic 'Judeo/Christian values', but I am just not into the religions. If you were to talk to atheists from other cultures, the arguments would hung much more upon other issues.

Backglass wrote:
Absence of religion only "leads you" to think for yourself. Now if you are saying that some people can't handle thinking for themselves and need a guidebook to teach them right from wrong, I would agree. Some people need religion as they aren't capable of doing this on their own. But to say it's the religion doing it and not the person is bullshit. It's like the old joke. "If you're an asshole when you get drunk, it's not because of the liquor. It's because you're an asshole".

You have a pretty simplistic view of religion. Religion does much more and is far deeper for most people than simply following a guidebook. That folks choose to follow a path of religion in no way implies they have given up thought (at least for most religions .. cults are a notable exception).

Backglass wrote:Shall we point out the MANY christians who cheat on their wives, steal, kill or otherwise "Sin"? I would counter that religion gives many a free pass. Repent and all is forgiven, etc. But that's different I suppose.

Christians are forgiven, not made perfect. But the question is would those folks be even worse without religion? Often the answer is "yes, they would".

Backglass wrote:Bottom Line: One must not be religious in order to lead a good, moral life.

No you don't. However, that doesn't give you a moral superiority, either. Each of us finds our own right and wrong. Religion has offered much for many, it has lead many others to ill. So, too with alternatives ... be they a "non-religious" religion or creed or whatever.

Snorri1234 wrote:

CrazyAnglican wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:No you misunderstand. The word "god" does not define what OA said it does. While a large percentage of the world says god is the omni-whatever creator, the word itself does not mean that. "God" does not imply an omni-all that creator.

Normal people with a functioning brain see that "god" can mean all kinds of things.

Isee your point to an extent, but a capitalization error hardly qualifies OA as abnormal nor does it say that his brain isn't functioning. The common noun "god" certainly does refer to any divine being, but the proper noun "God" refers to exactly what OA said.

And The Proper Noun (see I can capitalize too) "God" does not actually have a definition outside of the church. He is saying that a word has a meaning because he says so.

Sorry Snorri, but you are incorrect.

The word "god" refers generically to any god ... be it the omniscient Christian one, Pagan ones or, as was mentioned more difficult to describe or ephemeral entities.

The word "God", it is specific to the God either you or the one to whom you speak worships. The capitalization makes it a kind of "proper noun" or "name".

Since an overwheming majority of speakers, at least in the west are Jewish/Christian or Muslim, "God" is often used to mean the one "omniscient/all-knowing" god of these religions, unless it is specifically defined otherwise.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Backglass wrote:Shall we point out the MANY christians who cheat on their wives, steal, kill or otherwise "Sin"? I would counter that religion gives many a free pass. Repent and all is forgiven, etc. But that's different I suppose.

Christians are forgiven, not made perfect.

Some confess to priests. But it is not the holy part of the equation that I think is important - confession itself helps keep the psyche healthy. Others confess to psychiatrists, the Samaritans, chat show hosts,or diaries. My personal experiences as a shopkeeper, barman, training officer and palm reader force me to suggest that some folks will confess to anyone they see as having a role rather than a personality.

MeDeFe wrote:ok, now read what you wrote again.
Done? What did you notice?
It's pretty easy to spot, you even made it bold. "God" is defined as the "supreme creator", I take it that means a creator that does not need to be created. But what if others define "God" differently, as a being that needs a creator as much as anything else? Definitions of words are something that's very much relative to humans. If you start arguing from the definition you can at most have a hypothetical discussion about what could follow if such-and-such were the case, but you can't define something into existence.

It's just semantics. Most people agree with the fact that the Abrahamic God has no creator. Let's argue about that God, okay?

MeDeFe wrote:I'd say a scientist thinks "maybe this is how the universe came about, now let's see if this agrees with mathematical models, experimental physics and what we can generally observe about the world".
Not much hoping there, but a lot of looking for explanations and more interesting questions.

I don't think you can say that God isn't compatible with our physical models. There's nothing keeping a believer from looking for scientific explanations or asking interesting questions. It's a moot point.

Backglass wrote:Holier than thou, Grade A bullshit.

I'd start hurling baseless insults too, except...

Backglass wrote:Absence of religion only "leads you" to think for yourself. Now if you are saying that some people can't handle thinking for themselves and need a guidebook to teach them right from wrong, I would agree. Some people need religion as they aren't capable of doing this on their own. But to say it's the religion doing it and not the person is bullshit. It's like the old joke. "If you're an asshole when you get drunk, it's not because of the liquor. It's because you're an asshole".

As far as morality goes, that's exactly what I was talking about. Just as religion doesn't prevent someone from having morals, atheism doesn't prevent someone from being a free thinker. They may encourage it, but it's no requirement.

And I think there are quite a few atheists who could use some religious morals...

Backglass wrote:Shall we point out the MANY christians who cheat on their wives, steal, kill or otherwise "Sin"? I would counter that religion gives many a free pass. Repent and all is forgiven, etc. But that's different I suppose.

Bottom Line: One must not be religious in order to lead a good, moral life.

Yeah... I know. Did you read what OA and I were talking about? My cousin's an atheist and he's about as friendly and laid-back as they come. A random Christian will have greater odds of having solid morals than a random atheist, but it's not black and white.

PLAYER57832 wrote:In fact, this is one key reason the West is so often termed "arrogant" because other places really and truly do have differant basis' for their beliefs, differant values.... and we only proclaim to admit this.

In fact, many atheistic arguments actually confirm this. I would not call this site representative of any group, but Look at the numbers who say, essentially "I don't like who God must be" .. so I don't believe God exists. Or some version of "I have basic 'Judeo/Christian values', but I am just not into the religions. If you were to talk to atheists from other cultures, the arguments would hung much more upon other issues.

Not sure what you're getting at here... are you saying that Christians are wrong for labeling atheists, that atheists are wrong for labeling Christians, or that our culture is at fault for encouraging this kind of labeling?

john9blue wrote:It's just semantics. Most people agree with the fact that the Abrahamic God has no creator. Let's argue about that God, okay?

Total and utter bollox.
That's exactly what half the posts are about. Where did god come from?

jonesthecurl wrote:Total and utter bollox.
That's exactly what half the posts are about. Where did god come from?

That's not what I see. Looks to me like we're having a discussion about the effects of a belief in a "Prime Mover". In case you haven't noticed, we're not really trying to determine whether God exists here. That would be like bashing our heads against a brick wall.

john9blue wrote:
Why is that? Do tell... the Wager is a big part of my argument.

In addition to what Balsifen said, the mercenary attitude displayed in consciously (or unconsciously) accepting Pascal's Wager is what's going to prevent you from getting into any hypothetical heaven. You're not in it because of any genuine belief in God, you're in because God is offering the best deal on the afterlife. You may claim that you do believe, and maybe even convince yourself of that, but it won't change the fundamental detail that you're only in this "Christianity" buisness 'cause it has the greatest opportunities for profit. God ain't gonna let you into heaven with that attitude.

john9blue wrote:Science has no answers as to the origin of the universe or the nature of consciousness. That's where faith comes in.

Think of each religion as a scientific hypothesis to these questions. Not backed by data, just a possibility. Atheists don't even HAVE a hypothesis, they simply reject each one presented as impossible, even ones that theoretically could be true.

Actually, as I said before, faith-based solutions fails as scientific models, as they are fairly blatant Occam's Razor violations. They add a term to the equation (God) which is completely superflous, for no increase in accuracy over a scientific solution. Neither can answer the question of "what came before the universe" (the faith based solution because God is unknown and unknowable and the scientific solution because the time before the universe's existence has not been observed in any way), so why should we choose a more complex non-answer over a simpler one?

Let's have an analogy here. Say you drop a ball. You can assume the ball slipped or that, for example, a thousand tiny, invisible leprechauns pushed it out of your hand. Occam's razor can easily determine the valid solution in this situation. In fact, you've likely already, subconsciously employed it. Thousands of invisible leprechaun's have never been reported by any reliable witness; we have no reason to believe in their existance. The leprachaun-based solution posits their existence for no gain in accuracy; the model is significantly more complex for absolutely no reason. This is why Occam's razor is important; without it the door is opened to all kinds of soliphistic crap, like the leprechauns.

Of course, I chose an intentionally absurd analogy here, so as to better demonstrate the validity of Occam's Razor, but, in essence, there is no difference between invisible, ball-pushing leprechauns and God when both are put forward as scientific solutions for problems.

john9blue wrote:
I don't see how this is a Golden Mean fallacy. Either God exists, or He doesn't. And I still think that belief in God is a more viable option... you're going to have to elaborate on your above points.

Sorry; wrong fallacy. That's what I get for posting at midnight. Ignore that bit.

john9blue wrote:I'd start hurling baseless insults too, except...

Except it wasn't baseless.

john9blue wrote:And I think there are quite a few atheists who could use some religious morals...

There are plenty of people who need morals in general. You don't have a lock on anything.

john9blue wrote:A random Christian will have greater odds of having solid morals than a random atheist, but it's not black and white.

Wow. The fact that you can say such a thing with a straight face shows me the level of your indoctrination. So...on the whole you are saying that the majority of atheists (or non christians for that matter) are somehow "less moral" as a group? Do you have any facts to back up this claim or is this just what you have learned at church and had beaten into your head?

Backglass wrote:

john9blue wrote:I'd start hurling baseless insults too, except...

Except it wasn't baseless.

john9blue wrote:And I think there are quite a few atheists who could use some religious morals...

There are plenty of people who need morals in general. You don't have a lock on anything.

john9blue wrote:A random Christian will have greater odds of having solid morals than a random atheist, but it's not black and white.

Wow. The fact that you can say such a thing with a straight face shows me the level of your indoctrination. So...on the whole you are saying that the majority of atheists (or non christians for that matter) are somehow "less moral" as a group? Do you have any facts to back up this claim or is this just what you have learned at church and had beaten into your head?

Imma have to agree with Blackglass

Most of these claims are just silly.

No group is any more "moral" than another group, and in any case morals themselves are subject to definition. There are ALOT of killers who consider themselves Christian, and go to church everyday, and quite a few of them even go to church to get "forgiven". I think there are actually more religious killers because they know they can just be "forgiven" and then they feel all better about themselves.

john9blue wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:Total and utter bollox.
That's exactly what half the posts are about. Where did god come from?

That's not what I see. Looks to me like we're having a discussion about the effects of a belief in a "Prime Mover". In case you haven't noticed, we're not really trying to determine whether God exists here. That would be like bashing our heads against a brick wall.

Umm...Atheists don't believe in god. You do. The title of the thread is "Why do I believe?"...
And the first post in the thread talks about marshalling reasons for believing in god.
In what way is this not about whether god exists>

john9blue wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:In fact, this is one key reason the West is so often termed "arrogant" because other places really and truly do have differant basis' for their beliefs, differant values.... and we only proclaim to admit this.

In fact, many atheistic arguments actually confirm this. I would not call this site representative of any group, but Look at the numbers who say, essentially "I don't like who God must be" .. so I don't believe God exists. Or some version of "I have basic 'Judeo/Christian values', but I am just not into the religions. If you were to talk to atheists from other cultures, the arguments would hung much more upon other issues.

Not sure what you're getting at here... are you saying that Christians are wrong for labeling atheists, that atheists are wrong for labeling Christians, or that our culture is at fault for encouraging this kind of labeling?

I said that our entire concept of "morality" in the west, whether you are Christian or not, is based largely on the Judeo-Christian model. This tinges the debates because it is rare that someone, even an atheist, will accept that there really and truly are alternatives.

This is starting to get into a tangent, so I will make this as brief as I can. But, here is the thing. Why is it that murder is wrong, that it is NOT OK to marry girls of 12...etc. Pick any "normal" and standard "norm" and you find a society that either functions or did function well by violating that "norm".

Understand, I am NOT saying I believe there is no morality. I am Christian, try my best to follow the precepts of Christ (however, that means I and my family, I don't expect the rest of the world to abide them). However, just take the Muslim world as an example. I will stick to "surface" stuff so as not to get too heavy, but it makes the point. In much of the world it is absolutely common for men to kiss or hug each other in greeting. Also, people tend to stand much, much closer in just normal conversation ... almost close enough to touch noses.

Fast forward to an interview I heard with a soldier in Iraq. OK, not the most liberal or open-minded segment of the population, but definitely the face of American that many see. In this interview, they were talking about various changes implemented. You know what this young soldier picked up as an example? That men kiss men. This was just "wrong" he said ... and he saw it as his job to "teach" the native people that this was "not acceptable behavior".

Get it? It had nothing to do with security, safety or general welfare. It was a behavior that this soldier (and he did speak for many others, by-the-way) felt was "just wrong". So, since they were the occupiers they had the right to impose this on the population.

Again, I specifically picked a surface, unimportant issue. But, the same things happens on very deep levels. One of the problems mentioned here (broadly) is this idea that Christians judge atheists as "less moral". I wanted to point out the those very atheists are part of the same thing when facing the outer world. I wanted to point out that even those who so adamantly oppose Christianity, are, in fact, often embracing the very values Christianity puts forward, that they are not such "free" and "open" thinkers as many here wish to claim.

(and neither are Christians and Jews simply "sheep" ... but that is another discussion).