dutchroll

So......we should execute people to ease the load on the prison system? How far do you want to run with that logic, exactly? Not sure if you're aware how many death-row prisoners in the USA for example, have now been exonerated or pardoned after new DNA evidence was introduced. You think the Government sanctioned execution of someone with a wife and kids who didn't actually commit a crime is acceptable "collateral damage" for the lofty ideal (contradicted by real-world evidence) of believing you're reducing the likelihood of serious criminal acts? This is the problem I have with the death penalty. It's not reversible, and rarely consistently and fairly applied. Take a look at a list of countries with the death penalty and have a think about who you're getting into bed with.

A friend of mine is one of those. He in turn has a friend who is even worse. We recently had a 200+ post Facebook "debate" on the age of the Earth and Universe, after which I felt like I was bleeding from the ears. A consequence, I believe, of my neurons undergoing apoptosis (programmed cell death, for the uninitiated) in protest at the sheer gibberish they were being subjected to. We had scientific conspiracies, we had the serial prankster God who made the Earth 6000 years ago but planted all the evidence to suggest otherwise, we had everything. He just wouldn't budge, even when complete contradictions in his own arguments were listed one after the other. It was just an impenetrable wall of absolutely screwed up logic, with him all the while insisting that the evidence really does point to a 6000 year old Earth. What I do when global scientific conspiracies are invoked in an argument:

Every physicist (and even a whole lot of non-physicists) knows the Big Bang theory isn't perfect. The closer you get to tiny fractions of second after time=zero, the more problems get thrown up. However based on our current state of scientific observations and knowledge, it is the closest thing we have to explaining how the universe sprung into existence. If you want to say "God created the Big Bang", scientists generally wouldn't care, except to say "that's fine, but invoking a God to explain something is not in our job description - we look for real-world explanations". The assumption comes from the fact that the vast majority of religious people believe that their god has a noticeable influence over things that happen, answers their prayers, or when he doesn't answer them it's for a specific reason which they don't understand but he must know what he's doing anyway, protects them and keeps them safe (except when he doesn't, then again it must be for some reason they don't understand), etc, etc. If you believe that a God created the universe then left it alone and takes a hands-off approach to everything, then you are very much the exception rather than the rule! Most Christians believe God meddles in pretty much everything, every day. He's pretty bloody busy. Heck my parents even suggested to me once that the reason I got into a well paid professional flying job was because they prayed for me (yeah thanks a lot mum & dad - way to compliment your son - couldn't have been anything to do with years of friggin hard work could it?).

That there had to be energy and matter "in the beginning" is an inescapable physical fact, not a faith statement. Science does not answer the question of how the energy and matter got there in the first place, because it simply doesn't know. This is a fundamental difference between science and religion: When science doesn't know the answer, it states "I just don't know". When religion doesn't know the answer, it makes sh*t up.

Uh huh. Without the Bible most people would always be committing criminal acts, says the guy from Harvard Business School, where we see fine examples of ethics and morals being produced. You simply cannot beat a religious leap of logic, nor a religious dose of hypocrisy.

Well good honest lust at the time, yes, but it has its longer term downsides!

Ah yes the afterlife. I've never quite understood the religious fascination with the afterlife, other than to say that for the religious it seems to be a necessity (or consequence?) that you're actually petrified of the fact that your life will eventually end. Thus an afterlife must be concocted, and only you and your fellow believers will be permitted there. It's all a bit weird, though I do fancy the afterlife espoused by Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, where consignment to Hell is accompanied by free beer and strippers.

To answer that you need to invoke your "frustrated parent talking to 6 year old kid" inner self. "Because that's the way it is, ok?"

Wow. Looking back over the 80 pages of this thread, this atheistic science-loving mutant son of fundamentalist Christian parents (by anyone's definition except their own) is sure glad he didn't notice the discussion until the last couple of days!

They also uphold many principles which have been around since before Judaism and Christianity. So how therefore can they be definitively based upon Judeo-Christian principles? That's not to say religion doesn't influence the law. It most certainly does. However the fact still remains that original codes of laws came before Judeo-Christian religion.

So I don't think it's fair to say modern day laws have Judeo-Christian roots. Decent and fair rules are a necessary part of any successful society and have been around since before Judaism or Christianity. This harks back to the concept expressed by many that ethical and moral behaviour is only possible due to its basis in religion, which is wishful thinking as far as I'm concerned.

Written codes of laws specifying crimes and punishment including violence, and imposing rules of fairness, date back to earlier than 2000BC. The earliest Jewish/Hebrew law codes start about 1300BC.

If you followed the examples in the Old Testament in the Bible you'd arguably be right up there with Islamic extremists as far as the nasty stuff you could justify. Most Christians thankfully shy away from the Old Testament, preferring to not really go there. Both of the world's primary religious texts - Islamic and Christian - are littered with abhorrent violence in the name of their Gods in certain parts. One of the fundamental historical premises of popular religion, in my opinion, is that you're actually not really good enough to live a peaceful and free life if you don't follow it.

I suspect it's a combination of all of the above, depending on the individual leader!

I think the problem is simply fear, for quite a number of Muslims. Speaking out against radicals who hold power within a community that you're a member of can be easier said than done. It's even the same within the everyday workplace, or in politics. Whistleblowers are fairly rare for a reason. In those cases it is usually career which is threatened and that alone is enough to shut most people up, but for a Muslim speaking out against radicals it could well end up being their life, and that of their family members, which is threatened.

Whose God? There are many and various to choose from. Then again, if you were a certain friend of mine, this would be impossible, as the Earth is < 10,000 years old which precludes anything being known 30,000 years ago. This is because the Bible says so, and all the scientific evidence supports the Bible, didn't you know? (He and I had a >100 long exchange on his Facebook page about this, and I may as well have just explained various scientific facts to a wall)

The incorrect substitution of a possessive adjective instead of the contraction of the second person singular present tense of the verb "to be" is a common fault which needs to be rooted out on this forum before we discuss such trivia as far-ranging proposals for airworthiness directives or operating restrictions. ("Your" = it belongs to you. "You're" = you are)