Are you kidding me? That's horrible. That logic can be applied to the holocaust as well... One could say that it's the Jews fault that they were exterminated because they believed in Judaism. So they in effect condemned themselves to death by that same logic--the appalling and horrendous logic you're presenting to me right now...

You essentially just told me:

People cause themselves to die in situations like the Chinese cultural revolution and in the USSR because they believe in something--even if their beliefs don't harm or negatively influence others. The individuals who kill them aren't really the ones responsible because they wouldn't have people who fit the conditions of their own faulty and psychotic reasoning for exterminating those they saw fit to rid the Earth of.

That's in essence what you told me. I think I understand a lot more about atheism now, thanks. You helped me out with that at least.
You're rebutting yourself. You told me that atheism is the lack of faith, but really it's just another faith--because there's no way to prove that there are no Gods.

Faith is defined among other things as "belief that is not based on proof." Atheism or the concept of the absence of a God or gods has not and cannot be proved. If someone accepts that idea or concept, they're believing it without being able to ever prove it. Faith. So now which is it? Your statements are causing previous arguments of yours to collapse, indicating inconsistency and uncertainty, among other things.
Yes, we've been through this. It appears as if you see causation as some completely weird factor that's unaffected by choice and free will--and you wouldn't hold those directly choosing to commit murder and killings responsible for their killings, rather their victims are at fault for believing in something (not committing violence, mind you, just believing in something) just like in the Holocaust, the Chinese cultural revolution, and the Soviet Union. It's a dishonor and disgrace to imply that the killers were not at fault for killing--it was really the religion that the victims believed in. You're holding those victims responsible for their own genocide and murder.

As for 9/11, Islamic extremists/terrorists hate Western culture, so by the logic as stated previously, it would seem as if the terrorists themselves were not responsible--our Western culture was. Your logic is inconsistent in that you place blame in one set of situations on the beliefs of the victims--now in the case of 9/11, you're placing it on the beliefs of the killers. It's fairly easy to see how you're twisting your arguments in a ridiculous and paradoxical manner simply so that religion is always the negative association. Judgment--plain and simple. You can't seem to stop judging religion and those who would choose to believe in it, even if they're causing no one else any harm. What a wonderful outlook...
Tad bit different topic than Harry Potter, but I'll humor you. Would you criticize someone for being in awe and wonderment--or if they wished or even believed in witchcraft and in the subject matter of the fictional novels "Harry Potter?" It would seem you'd have no problem judging them harshly and criticizing them terribly for their beliefs simply for being different than yours. But then again, the crucial difference between Harry Potter and religious scriptures is that Harry Potter was written as a self-proclaimed work of fiction about a fictional character, and religious scriptures like the Bible were written in whatever form as historical accounts of miraculous and spiritual events leading to the birth of said religions.
Who are you to define or deem someone to be practicing "weak" atheism versus "strong" atheism? For someone who doesn't believe in God, you seem to like to take it upon yourself to rather omnisciently define incredibly subjective terms as if they're factual and should be universally accepted as so simply because you've designated it to be that way.No, collectively you just persistently discuss an issue that cannot be resolved by the human mind. So how much time would you say you waste debating an issue that can't and never will be proved/judging those who have beliefs that are different from yours--if any?
Ironically, atheism currently holds a whopping 8% of the worlds population, so what exactly does that say about it? And how exactly are you defining "sanity," here? You just explained to me not long ago that you see religious people as bringing anti-religious genocides on themselves, but you refused to apply that same logic to the pagans or atheists of the crusades... Oh no, then it was still religion's fault... And of course when you brought up 9/11, the inconsistency of your arguments prevailed yet again--you blamed religion once more, instead of contributing the "causation" to those victims who followed the ideals and principles of Western culture (which would have been consistent with your original argument). I don't know if I want to hear your definition of "sanity" on second thought...
You're lucky I'm a fairly reasonable person and don't take that implied insult too personally. Watch yourself, that's all I have to say to that. Implied insults contribute nothing positive to such a discussion, but I enjoy sardonic witticisms, and that one seemed harmless enough.
Why don't you just claim to be God if you know all that--the answers to many unanswerable questions?
Yeah... I remember how you applied that to fit a very one-sided, closed-minded argument, ironically it inconsistently came back negatively criticizing religion every time. Even in the crusades, when by that logic, they would be attributed to the faithlessness of the pagans and atheists, you couldn't retain that consistency, you twisted it in a very underhanded paradoxical manner to match up with your one-sided argument (which is now completely falling apart).

No, I am familiar with both. They are very similar. Determinism eliminates the factor of human choice, as does fatalism--that's the only correlation I was making.

Once again, a perfect example of your twisted logic--manipulating the scenario to fit your one-sided, closed-minded argument. By the logic you presented to me, the causation of 9/11 would have been the Western idealism/principles of the victims. By your absurd "causation" logic, if everyone in the twin towers been religious--Muslims--9/11 wouldn't have happened. The same absurd logic applies to the crusades--if everyone in Europe had been religious--by the standards of the catholic church--then the crusades wouldn't have happened. So by the logic you presented to me, the pagans and atheists who refused to believe in Christianity caused the crusades. If that's what you're standing by in terms of Stalin and the cultural revolution, that would be what we call consistency. I've seen none of it from you thus far. I've just seen a lot of judgment--looking for excuses to criticize and rant about how bad religion is. So where's your argument go from here? Out the window and down the gutter.
You think Stalin would have killed those who practiced a religion even if atheism wasn't in existence? Hardly. First of all, atheism always has existed--it's faithlessness by your claim... There was never a need or process to "invent" atheism or to "think" about it--considering it's called the "lack of a specific belief"--in a God or gods, it was always an option and a thought process for some. So there's really no viable hypothetical there for you to omnisciently declare an outcome for as if you know for a fact what would happen. So yes, we've covered this again and again, but it is inconsistent with your logic. By that same logic, those who didn't believe in Christianity during the crusades were the causation of the crusades--that would be consistent with your own logic, but you haven't even maintained that... Intriguing.
You would do well not to instruct me on where and how to post. The subjectivity of "motive" fits in perfectly with the post of yours I was replying to, if you wish not to reply back--don't. It's that simple. You would simply be choosing to not address my reply back. However, you do not get to determine where this discussion goes.

__________________
Political Diplomacy Game Map
Forum Diplomacy Game Discussion Thread
__________________
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
-John F. Kennedy

"Education begins the gentleman, but reading, good company and reflection must finish him."
-John Locke

"What worries you, masters you."
-John Locke

Oh so you're saying it's a factor... Factors don't imply causation. A factor in an outcome means anything could happen. The Jews believing in Judaism did not cause the Holocaust, because that was not the determining or deciding factor. Their belief wasn't what directly caused their pain was it? What caused their suffering was the unmerited hatred and vile feelings of resentment the Nazis held toward them. That was the determining factor, and the Nazis chose to act upon it. A factor does not equate causation, because factors in and of themselves do not cause people to act--people decide that for themselves. You may believe in and accept the absurdity of determinism in and that factors initiate action without choice on the part of the individual, but you would be the extreme minority in that case.
Certainly, because that was an argument, wasn't it? And I really declared my "superiority" didn't I? Neither of those things are true, both are completely false. I expressed that you assisted me in getting a better understanding of atheism. Neither an argument, nor a declaration of superiority--and definitely not anything to take personally --but a truthful statement from my perspective.
I'm sorry, my mistake--it must have been someone else who said that.
The two terms are as synonymous as synonymous gets.

Belief - Synonyms from Thesaurus.com

Faith - Synonyms from Thesaurus.com

Oh and here... Not faith, huh? Belief indicates proof? Quite the opposite...

Belief - Definitions from Dictionary.com

And one could initiate a religion around the belief that the sun exists could they not? In fact, many ancient religions revolve around such beliefs regarding the sun. One could hold any belief or faith to a stature of religion or religious spiritual importance. Faith and religion are not terms that you get to define as if you have some ultimate and objective say in this debate. So no, the definition I used was not "conveniently singled out," it was utilized to demonstrate the complete and utter subjectivity of this entire topic, something which you don't seem to respect--almost as if your belief or opinion is the only one that truly matters.
Alright, let's go ahead and settle this then:

Atheism - Definitions from Dictionary.com
Then perhaps you're not familiar with what a straw man argument really is. A straw man argument is where the debater manipulates and twists the wording or logic of the other debater into a different--usually negative--association which it wasn't, acting as if they know that's what the debater meant in the first place. That certainly wasn't a straw man, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with such terms before throwing them around.
Then by that same logic, other religions would not be included as factors either...

This goes back to Stalin and your claim that atheism wasn't a factor in the killings in the Soviet Union. Stalin believed there was no God or gods--he was a self-proclaimed atheist. Anyone who was caught worshiping any deity was killed, tortured, etc. at Stalin's command (they were oppressed, punished, cruelly treated). Had Stalin himself been religious rather than an atheist, Stalin would not have had those who were not atheists killed, imprisoned, tortured, etc.--history would have been different. Atheism was a factor and your pitiful attempts to deny it rebut and skew the very logic you have been presenting in this debate.
Well there you have it... Atheism was an environmental factor--a major environmental factor in the killings of those people in the Soviet Union and the Chinese cultural revolution. Anyone who was caught practicing doctrine against the principles of atheism--anyone who was caught worshiping, praying to, reading about, etc. any God or deity was killed, imprisoned, tortured, etc. Had these men in control not been atheists--the many religious people who suffered under their regimes of terror would not have been so cruelly oppressed.
You're conveniently bringing up Islamic radicalism, which defies so many principles of Islam anyway, and we can easily isolate the radicalism as another "factor" separate from the religion itself--dependent upon other factors as well (ie: upbringing, environment, poverty, etc.). You're dealing with so many "factors" unrelated to the religions themselves and it seems as if you're trying to attribute them directly to the religions themselves in an attempt to rip the religion apart for no reason other than... well... the same thing as it's been throughout this topic--judgment.
We've already been over this. It was a major contributing factor by the very logic you presented to me. Obviously it wasn't required, but no one factor is ever required for any one outcome. All outcomes can be reached by any combination of factors. The same goes with the crusades. Religion wasn't required for European monarchs to determine resentment for Middle Eastern culture and a desire to take their land. The "Crusades" are associated with "religious conflict" and warring, but if religion wasn't a factor, the same thing could have easily happened for different reasons and it still could have been called "the Crusades." You're dealing with incredibly fluctuating logic here, and it's very amusing. You're switching it around when it can be used (exactly similar to how you've used it) to criticize atheism as a major contributing factor to the deaths of many people, and claiming that it can't be for only one reason I can see--because you represent that side of this argument. What clever tactics...

__________________
Political Diplomacy Game Map
Forum Diplomacy Game Discussion Thread
__________________
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
-John F. Kennedy

"Education begins the gentleman, but reading, good company and reflection must finish him."
-John Locke

"What worries you, masters you."
-John Locke

(Continued)

No they really don't... 9/11 could have happened with a combination of virtually any factors. You're dealing with factors here, you should know better than to declare ultimate combinations to be required for any one hypothetical outcome. Just because 9/11 occurred one way in history certainly doesn't mean it couldn't occur any other way--or the same way--as a result of any other combination of factors (religion or Western culture a part of it or not, even).
I haven't defined your arguments, your arguments are clearly defined--they're written out right in front of both of us. I haven't made assumptions about your arguments and/or logic, I've hypothesized about them and pondered some different things regarding them. Notice the language I'm very careful in using when I analyze your arguments. I do not say blatantly and ultimately "according to your logic/arguments..." Rather, I say things like "it seems as if by the logic you presented to me..." The wording I use reflects my analytical outlook, which is not "judgmental" and not based on "assumptions." The logic you present in this debate is up for analysis, as is the logic I present in this debate. If I were to say "your logic is ____", that would fit your category of assumption/judgment, but I maintain a careful use of my wording so as to avoid mistaken accusations like the one you just carelessly flung at me. As for the "lie" you're accusing me of, it was merely a mistake--one I already admitted to making and apologized for. You were indeed right, you had not said what I thought you had. So none of your accusations are correct, yet what seems to be your very harsh and critical judgment of religion still stands.
And who pray tell believes that? If you're implying that I do, you would be mistaken. Ironically, you used the term "straw man" incorrectly earlier, and have now given yourself an almost perfect example of a real straw man argument. Wonderful.
It doesn't matter what I think regarding specific beliefs. What I think regarding all beliefs is that the beliefs themselves don't hurt anyone. When individuals take beliefs and lifestyles to the extreme--or act upon them in cruel and tyrannical ways, then they should be punished--but judging any set of beliefs because one sees it as "different" or "foolish" is the major factor that causes so many conflicts and wars in the first place... Acceptance is the only thing that will bring this ridiculousness to an end.
Why would you need to? Why would you try? If they're not hurting anyone? Why would you feel the need to squash them for their beliefs? The only real true even possible or logical answer to that question would seem to be what it always has--judgment or resentment. Why? Because they're different? Because you perceive their beliefs to be "foolish?" Maybe they perceive yours to be "foolish?" Who's right? Who's wrong? The real question to ask is who gives a shit? Atheism doesn't hurt people--atheist individuals who act upon the factor of atheism in a cruel, oppressive and tyrannical way hurt people. Christianity doesn't hurt people--Christians who act upon the factor of Christianity in a cruel, oppressive and tyrannical way hurt people. Punish the individuals, judge the individuals, but what you seem to be doing is applying one set of judgmental "logic" conditions to an entire "environmental" factor--which people believe in--(a factor that in its isolated state hurts no one) and then you refuse to apply it consistently to another factor--the factor of principles which you seem to accept and embrace. That's not right.
How would you know that it isn't? The writing indicates that it isn't, that's all I can say, but what's more important is that it doesn't matter. Why? Because it's unknown and that's the idea of faith. And once again, you ask more questions based around another factor aimed at "disproving" something that cannot be disproved.
That's a laugh. The encyclopedia was written by people--individual human beings like you and me. They're no more qualified to tell people whether or not they're practicing "weak" atheism or "strong" atheism than you. That's absurd. Such a subjective matter cannot simply be defined and cast off on some checklist as if it's been dealt with in an "objective" manner... It's subjective--that goes against the whole principle of subjectivity.
Oh really? So you would tell me that you're simply hypothesizing in this debate about the subjective? All these bits of one-sided logic--which are apparently not consistently and universally applicable (as they should be) are merely your theories? Would you care to answer that question then and put my hypothesizing about your very abstract and somewhat confusing tactics?
That's why I said collectively--meaning collectively the other atheists who participate in such pointless discussions. See my next reply for more.
I'm not discussing whether religion is "real" or not--that's the pointless argument. I'm expressing to people the importance of acceptance and defending those people who would choose to believe in the unknowable and unknown from continued judgment from the bigoted attacks of people who would attack them merely because what they believe is different and perceived to be "foolish." So no, my side of this is not pointless, I'm not trying to "prove" or "disprove" religion, because I recognize how foolish that really is. I'm expressing that the only thing that will ever resolve any of this ridiculousness is acceptance, something it seems a whole lot of people have yet to understand.
They were "sane" according to you. Most people would say that it goes against the idea of "sanity" to pointlessly sit and condemn or judge other beliefs because they are perceived to be different or "foolish"--as that's the factor (the mindset) that contributes hugely and even in some cases causes conflicts, wars and genocides. The mindset of judgment. Beliefs in and of themselves don't judge. An ideal can't judge. An individual can. Remember that.
Stalin engineered the motive of killing those religious masses... Mao Ze-Dong engineered the motive of killing those religious masses. They weren't religious, they were atheists. Anyone who practiced religion against the principles or against the idea of their atheist lifestyle (no God or gods) was imprisoned, tortured or killed. And you ask "where's the atheism?" It's a huge contributing factor.

We've been over this and I've shown how flawed and one-sided that logic you continue to blast this discussion with is. Neither atheism nor religion were required for any of those conflicts, they were merely contributing environmental factors. Those conflicts could have occurred from any number of different factors (whether involving atheism, religion, or not), none of them were required. 9/11 could have been orchestrated by a different faction (a non-religious faction--nationalists, maybe) who hated the WTO and what it stood for. The crusades could have occurred as a result of European monarchs feeling general resentment for Muslim culture (not religiously oriented) and the desire to expand their territory. It still might have been called the Crusades, but religion certainly wasn't a required factor. As for Stalin's killings and the killings of the Chinese cultural revolution, a different leader could have killed millions in relation to economic status, race, or any number or combination of different factors. Although interestingly enough, to kill that many people, it would seem almost necessary to base it on something as widespread as a belief. The idea is that they were all factors and they were not required--none of them, but they contributed--even atheism. You continue to deny that obvious truth--which is inconsistent with the logic you have presented.
There is an infraction that specifically denotes and results from an "implied insult to another member." There are depending factors, naturally. You can be sarcastic, there's nothing wrong with sarcasm. But the implied sarcasm I called you out on was pushing it--as the reference to a 5 year old's incapability of understanding a complex system of logic/reasoning is blatantly insulting. I'm no idiot and that is pressing your luck. That sort of implied reference violates "discuss the issue not the poster." Sarcasm and implied insulting references relating to the absurdity of one's argument, post, etc. is fine, and I think you know that's what the moderator was telling you (or that's what he meant). When it becomes personal, however, it's unnecessary and there are grounds for action. But I don't mind, I know friendly banter when I see it--the point is that other people may not see those kinds of references the same way.
I see. Thank you for enlightening me.

__________________
Political Diplomacy Game Map
Forum Diplomacy Game Discussion Thread
__________________
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
-John F. Kennedy

"Education begins the gentleman, but reading, good company and reflection must finish him."
-John Locke

"What worries you, masters you."
-John Locke

Okay, so in your context, a factor is anything that contributes to the end result, but then in that same context, the atheistic principles/lifestyle/[what have you] of Stalin, Mao Ze-Dong were major contributory factors to the religious oppression experienced in the Soviet Union and in the Chinese cultural revolution. This is what I've been saying. This "logic" of contributing factors cannot be one-sided, logic isn't something that discriminates between certain scenarios, it's a universally and consistently applied tool of reasoning--when utilized correctly anyway.
I don't know how to reply to this other than to tell you that it's just plain wrong. My attitude isn't bitter and snide, it never has been--if you haven't maybe recalled I've persistently professed acceptance of both sides of the ongoing and ridiculous religion versus atheism debate, but in this specific case--in this specific topic, I've seen judgment flying constantly from the atheist side of the discussion (not vice versa), and all I've done is point that out as well as point out how useless it is to judge others' beliefs. Never once have I called atheism "foolish" or "illogical." Never once have I judged atheism or judged any individuals for being associated with atheism. Neither have I tried to disprove atheism. I would call attempts at disproving one's beliefs for no reason other than the "I told you so" factor snide and bitter, but maybe you wouldn't. If you can point out any of my posts that clearly or legibly makes a reference to "atheists being immoral," please do so. In fact, take that as a challenge, or admit to misunderstanding or misrepresenting my words entirely. I'm not the one judging beliefs, here, Bronze Medal. I'm not the one calling others' beliefs "foolish" I'm saying that judging others' beliefs is what's foolish--or at least pointless. I would suggest sticking to the subject matter from now on rather than making false accusations or inferences about the "attitudes" or demeanors of other posters that you cannot back up (especially when the accusations hit awfully close to home for some of your own arguments and posting styles).
Evidence is synonymous with the term "proof." And my argument still stands as backed by the definition--belief is not evidence and reasoning based.

Ironically, at a level of infancy, there's no way to define the intellectual level of the realization between God or Gods--and there is absolutely no need for the term "atheism." We know only that infants function at a basic enough level only to try and survive--if they're even able to accomplish that. The idea of "godlessness" is hardly a feasible "default," it's no different than any animal in the state of nature--the "default" could be contributed to the state of their mind being in the beginning stages of primitive development--not opened up to intellectual enlightenment--it isn't capable obviously. It's very ironic actually, to think that technically by human intellectual definition (and in English terminology), atheism is the default in the state of human infancy--and only then, after the human mind grows and expands, do intellectual ideas of acceptance, theories, possibilities, etc. begin to form and take shape.

To reiterate--this is the second time I've explained this now--I have not misrepresented your argument, it's quite possible that I've misunderstood it and posted my misunderstood ideas about it, but never have I misrepresented it. I'm very careful about the wording I use, and that's where misrepresentation comes from. When I'm putting the logic you present to the test in other scenarios, I avoid saying "by your logic" (that would be a strawman and a misrepresentation--because only you can tell me what your own logic curtails), rather I say, "by the logic you've presented, it seems..."

As for what I perceived to be inconsistencies in your arguments, yes, the logic you present in this debate seems terribly one sided. You deny that atheism was indeed a factor of the mass communist religious oppression-based genocides of the 20th century, when it quite obviously was. The leaders were atheists, and they oppressed and killed those who defied the life "default" principles of atheism--those who worshiped and prayed to any other god or gods. Had they not been atheists, those millions of people probably wouldn't have died. It still could have happened, but atheism was a factor in the way the religious oppression-based genocides turned out. You've denied that numerously. Yet you attribute religion as a factor in the Crusades. The logic can and should be applied in a parallel fashion, but my saying that doesn't make the argument a "straw man." Perhaps you need an external reference on what a straw man is.

Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I didn't describe a position that superficially resembled your actual view, I explained how it seems that the logic you presented is inconsistent and flawed. Not a straw man by any definition. Are we clear on that now?

__________________
Political Diplomacy Game Map
Forum Diplomacy Game Discussion Thread
__________________
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
-John F. Kennedy

"Education begins the gentleman, but reading, good company and reflection must finish him."
-John Locke

"What worries you, masters you."
-John Locke

Lockes main arguement seems to be that Stalin was atheist, Stalin was evil, so atheism is evil.

Jack the Ripper was evil, Jack the Ripper was a londoner, so all londoners are evil

George Bush is dumb, George Bush is American, all Americans are dumb

Bin Laden is fanatical, Bin Laden has a beard, all people with beards are fanatical


Blaming Stalins actions on atheism or even theism is ridiculous.

I am sorry, I have been of this thread for quiet a while, and have just glanced over the debating that has taken place while I have been away. I have read that people say we are foolish for beliving in an invisible entity, I also read someone talking about a socialist state being an answer to our problem and they quoted Albert Einstein. Well I see myself as a socialist not a communist, nor a liberal but a socialist. A socialist is soemoene who believes in equality thats all. Now for those of you who say we are foolish for having faith in God, most of the great scientists this world has known believe in God, Albert Einstein being one of them.
You say there is there is no proof God does not exist, but it is probable he does not. Well I say there is proof to suggest God does exist. If you believe in Darwins theory of evolution of man coming from ape where then is the missing link. Plus there has been miracle cures to all kinds of illnesses, that doctors cannot explain. Now some people say having faith is like a placeabo effect if you believe you will be cured then you will be. However I believe there is some people who will never believe no matter what evidence you show them. Maybe if you were shown the risen Jesus you would believe but by then it would probably be to late.

I should have been to sleep hours ago, i'm going to be hurting tommorow. Going thing i'm only guarding a base, lol.
But, let me crack a whip at this argument.
Sadly, Bronze Medal has already answered the only part i wished to talk about, so in an effort to say something to get people to talk to me, i'm going to repeat what Bronze said. ?
Yea, i don't get it either, but here we go.
Sure, Einstein believed in some sort of God, not the Judeo-Christian god, but some god. But a lot of other great scientist didnt believe in god of any sort. Einstein became famous because his revolutionary theories during a time of war and because of the Atom bomb. he has been talked about in school. But these days we don't hear about many of the others because... A) there too new to be in our textbooks or B) they didnt help create a giant bomb.
No offense to Einstein though on any account.
Hawkings isnt religious. i'm not sure if hes atheist or agnostic because i have two quotes which suggest the opposite but still, he's not religious. Carl Sagan. You might not know who he is. but this guy was amazing, he knew so much about the universe. he made a show called Cosmos that could answer so many questions you have, sadly he's dead.
So why don't more people know about him. Because we have better things to preoccupy our time with, unlike years ago with Einstein.
Miracles of illness? I'm no fan of biology, simply because its harder to understand than physics but i know enough about it to know that we know very little about our own bodies just as we know very little about this universe. Theres genes in our bodies that we don't know what they do and than genes that we share with our species completely different from us that causes cancer. Any of these ? genes could cure our body of something. I wish i could make it more clear, but i'm trying to pay attention to my iron on my uniform so it doesnt catch on fire.
Do you believe ALL nonbelievers will go to Hell during Armagedon? Did Ghandi go to Hell, what about those before Christ came. And those who don't know who Christ is. What about those who lives better lives than most christians but simply question because God is said to have given us freewill?
Why did i ask, because your last sentence was a little reminding of many fundementalist christians. though i do not believe you are one, just asking.

__________________
"For every man there is a purpose he sets up in his life, let yours be the doing of all good deeds." - Qur'an
Give every man your ear, but few thy voice. Take each man's censure, but reserve thy judgment.[Hamlet] -Shakespeare, William
Where there is doubt, there is freedom -Latin Proverb