[Cam]

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

While I thank you for your attempt at being unbiased in your approach, I must again way in. As a Christian using the bible as their source of teaching, it is almost instinctual to care about the beliefs of others. However most people would understand that this doesn't give us the right to jump all over people and try to convert them. I believe it comes down to something called common courtesy.
I have found (from my own experience) that when people find out that you are a believer, they often begin to question you about your beliefs. This is usually done in a polite matter, as it is intriguing to learn something new.

Actually wasn't trying to be unbiased, I certainly have a bias against religion, just not against the religious themselves.

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

There is a flaw in this argument. With your line of thinking it is not possible to be discriminatory against transvestites, or homosexuals, etc. While liking someone of the same sex is more often than not a genetic trait, becoming someone of the opposite sex is a life choice similar in nature to finding a faith and committing it. Do you mean to tell me it is OK to discriminate against people because of important decisions that they have made in their lives?
Also Religion isn't a thought process that can be avoided and thus disregarded as you so claim. Religion is an inherent part of life. Choosing to be an Atheist is a Religious practice, one that I would say when investigated for its principles could potentially be far more negative in nature than being a believer in any other religion.

I may not have been clear enough here. First off, we are using the word 'discriminate' in different ways. I am using the word in the broadest sense that include simply not liking someone (the way vid was discriminating). You seem to be using the word with regard to people's rights, which is a major difference. I'll not use the word with the broader sense from here on. Secondly, I'm not saying it's ok to discriminate against or even dislike people with uncommon gender/sexual identities which is NOT a belief or decision and cannot have a negative effect on the way one treats others. What I am saying is that if someone holds certain beliefs, we should dislike them. This can apply to (for example) racism, homophobia and apparently for vid, religion. Please keep in mind that I am not equating religion to racism, I am merely using racism as an example as to why we should hold people accountable to their beliefs.

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

You would be very pleasantly surprised. Interestingly enough, being a Christian was undoubtedly not a part of the criteria for being hired. Remember this man has been on the Police force since 1987, has been a part of many divisions within the force. Though I don't know him well enough to say whether or not he could be qualified as a genious, I could hazard a guess that based on his qualifications, he is a fairly smart individual.

We may have differing opinions on what it means to be intelligent. For me intelligence means:
1. Proficient in logic: one of the major principals of logic is the requirement of evidence. Being as this is inconsistent with religious teachings, this generally excludes the religeous. (Although there are exceptions, namely people who have been told all their lives that the evidence is there and just haven't looked for it themselves.)
2. Thinks for themselves: Doesn't go through life believing everything the are told. Investigates things for themselves.
3. Reflects on beliefs: Goes through beliefs to make sure that they all hold up to logic and evidence.

I think you may be thinking of intelligence based on the amount of things one knows. But this is just the regurgitation of information.

I admit that I was (and have still been) too harsh, and for that I apologize. My intent was never to be cruel and I regent any offense i may have caused.

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

Now your post only highlights your own ignorance about Christians and how they live their lives. A big part of being a believer is submitting to God's will and committing to something that you would prefer not to do. Now to those who don't believe in God, I would understand if this in their mind implies lunacy, however this does not fall at all in line with your statement that
"the psychology of religion has shown that your relationship with God is actually a relationship with your own ego (thus God's opinions are always your own)".

This is a very complex issue and I have glossed over most of it but basically: People who believe in God form an idea in their mind of what God's opinions are, then use this idea to develop and reconfirm their opinions. This makes them much less likely to admit they are wrong because it would also be admitting that God is wrong. I understand that you wont be able agree because you believe that the opinions that your mental God are the actual opinions of God.
Now for the idea of submitting to God: If one submits to the opinions they think God has, then they think they are humble. But they only are if God actually exists. If not, then their relationship with God is actually a relationship with their own ego, and they are even less humble.
Now for the idea of doing things you don't want to do for God: So if you disagree with some of the things God wants you to do, then this means that either God want's you to do immoral things OR you don't want to do moral things. If God is Immoral, then why does he deserve your worship? If I believed in an immoral God then I wouldn't worship Him on principle, even on threat of Hell. The other alternative is that you don't want to do moral things. Is this true? I've been told that Christianity teaches that all people are immoral and only the threat of Hell keeps them in line. Based off of the moral people I've met who don't believe in Hell, I can't believe that.

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

So you claim that it is OK to be ignorant of the subject at hand, and yet come up with the answers despite this ignorance. Even an unintelligent man such as myself (What with my contradictory beliefs and all) could see the flaw in that statement.

I do NOT think that it's ok to be ignorant, I just think it's ridiculous to demand that someone know everything about a topic to be even allowed to participate. And I'm sorry if I've offended you about the intelligence thing, I should not have even brought it up, but now that we're on the topic I direct you above to what I consider prerequisites to intelligence.

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

I would gladly accept criticism of my beliefs, as such a thing only opens the door to conversation. What does offend me however, are ignorant and generalized statements that hold no water what so ever. Remember that the majority of the statements on this site have not been against Christianity but against those who believe in it. If you want to delve into the Bible and start playing the "I'll show you the contradiction's, the lies, etc." game then I am very much OK with that, actually I would warn you that I very much would look forward to it.

It just seemed strange that you would bring up 'Freedom of Religion' as no one was even suggesting limiting that freedom. All that people were doing was criticizing and although some were even insulting, no one was suggesting limiting religeous freedom. As for pointing out the contradictions in Christianity, I don't really see the point all I need is: Skepticism is logical therefor faith based religion is illogical

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

Just remember I was an Atheists once, so I know every argument in the book. However if you want to do so (which I doubt you do) then let's do it over PM so not to lead these people to falsely believe that I am trying to convert them.

That's really interesting. I've never met someone who actually went from being an Atheist to being religeous and I would be very interested in discussing this further and I agree we should switch over to PM(I wrote this whole thing before I noticed this part of your post)

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

I don't even know what to say here.

Originally Posted by Bdog

I don't really see anything offside about Clunis' interview and what he said. Just last week, I saw both Obama and Romney talk about praying before making important decisions. I doubt that when the election is over, the winner is going to turn the US into some sort of theocracy (and the same holds true in our case).

As for being socially progressive, I don't know how being a Christian and being socially progressive are mutually exclusive. Heck, Jesus' life and message was probably the most socially progressive at the time (and even now haha): Feed the poor, heal the sick, look after the elderly, etc. etc...

Your right Chris, this part was muddled and unclear. Basically what I'm trying to say here is that I am concerned that the rest of the country will see this and see us as socially backwards because, generally the more religeous a place is, the more socially conservative it is. I understand that this correlation does not necessarily mean causation, but will the rest of the country understand this? Doubt it.

I know quite a few people that would argue that the US is already a theocracy. I wouldn't agree with that, but that is the impression they are giving and I would prefer that we don't start giving that impression. I understand that one prominent government figure promoting religion doesn't make us a theocracy, but they can add up to a big problem.