[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by rlpw

Well, Athiests DO have lobbiests

Based on your findings, how much influence do these atheist lobbyists have on Congress compared to Christian lobbyists, Jewish lobbyists, or other religious lobbyists?

...and I really do not agree with almost all established religion.

But you yourself claim to believe in God. Or did I misunderstand, and you actually meant that you're a deist as opposed to a theist?

Just to clarify, atheism is NOT a religion. Both Dr. Dawkins and Sam Harris emphatically point out that religion is by its very nature is based on beliefs for which there is no scientific evidence. I'll elaborate on this in a bit, I want to find the specific passages.

When you mentioned who has a right to live, the zygote or the suffering child in my eyes they both do. The question is if it is moral to kill one human life to save another, and I'm real iffy on a lot of that since their are other sources of stem cells.

This one's from neuroscience PhD candidate Sam Harris's Letter to a Christian Nation:

Originally Posted by Sam Harris

A three-day-old embryo is a collection of a 150 cells called a blastocyst. There are, for the sake of comparison, more than 150,000 cells in the brain of a fly. The human embryos that are destroyed in stem cell research do not have brains, or even neurons. Consequently, there is no reason to believe they can suffer their destruction in any way at all. It is worth remembering, in this context, that when a person's brain has died, we currently deem it acceptable to harvest his organs [given prior permission by him, natch] and bury him in the ground. If it is acceptable to treat a person whose brain has died as something less than a human being, it should be acceptable to treat a blastocyst as such. If you are concerned about suffering in this universe, killing a fly should present you with greater moral difficulties than killing a human blastocyst.

Originally Posted by rlpw

Oh and true Communism by it's definition is Athiest...

What definition? What dictionary or encyclopedia are you working with? As I stated, Carl Jung specifically pointed out that in communism, in effect, God is replaced by the masses. Now, it may become secularized that way in consequence, but the behaviour of this organization is practically indistinguishable from religion per se. That is, the belief (i.e. the worship) is transferred from a deity onto an idea.

And we all know that historically, to challenge such an idea is punishable by imprisonment or death. Which also happens with bona fide religion - defy it and you are burned at the stake, or you might as well be.

Catholics and Roberts are insane...

LOL! We both agree there. And I was raised as a Catholic. Now, however, I hover between deism and atheism.

their are athiests using the courts to harass Christians...

As Aj_ asked, so do I. Where?

...and the REAL reason that their is a huge AIDS problem in Africa is that the established traditional means of birth control is anal sex which by the way raises your chances of infection expotentially(something to do with blood, I'll have to look it up again)

I think Aj_ has beat me to put a damper on this supposition.

Did I mention you are adorable Trepsie?

I love you, too, sweetie. However, sometimes I'm about as adorable as a shrew (and all times the same size as one). I was raised a Catholic, but now, like you, I find organized religion to be disgusting. But unlike you I'm now at a crossroads in that all my doubts past and present have been profoundly articulated by both Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, and I'm still struggling. I'm in that grey zone between being a deist and an atheist (my oldest sister, btw, is a full fledged atheist). As for theism, here's my subsersive take on it:
Man created God in his own image.