Actually i turned out to be closer to Secular Humanism. Despite my mistrust of being tagged to any religious or ethical faction, i found it more interesting than how much i was, in deed, expecting. To me, it's a nice test. Surely, i dont consider it, in any way, scientifically worthy.

This is pretty funny: hundreds of people here on CD, pretend to be Judge arrogating the power to acquit a cruelty, as the WW II has been, ignoring a simple common sense which aims to respect the whole world. But surely, you would answer me: "what would have happened if...". How the hell you can even think to be correct killing thousands of people for something that could have happened? Maybe you dont know that people more preparated in history have already talked about this, and them all have agreed and decreed that event the nth mistake of the human race. Of course Usa didnt pay anything for its cruelties, as you can clearly see, they are doing whatever they want to in Middle East: killing civilians, for example. But, yeah, of course this is correct too: what would happen if Usa armies were not in Middle East massacrating civilians??

Faith by nature is something active? This is true as the fact that by nature all men are rich. How many people do you know who state to have faith in something, while they ain't move a finger to reach the target of their faith: christians, protestants, those who have faith in the state (yes, this is a type of "faith" too), and by doing so they cross their arms thinking faith to be something easy as existing: unfortunately, they will never know what living means.

If peace means standing like a dumbass, senseless, without hurting anyone because you are too high to understand what's going on, then it is possible. But that's just so childish. If peace means a mature way to act actively throughout our lives, reasoning and trying to solve world problems then a joint wouldnt solve it.

But what about that tree? I mean, can you benefit of it in a way or is it totally useless? If it isnt, well, i wouldnt call it theft. If certain type of people were abandoned and had to survive on their own, spending money to feed some plants instead of others, probably, today, they would die because of ignorance. Of course this mechanism led to theft among countries' heads of state. But the principle is absolutely fine.

Silly question: thousands of years are enough to decree this question absolutely illogical, based on old closed popular belief. And if the amount of years dont light up anything in your brain, then a crumb of common sense would help you figure out how ignorant and impudent you are.

Have you ever heard about Erich Fromm? He also added that we all should have faith in Man; and these two types of faith must not be carried on in a passive way, the point the more important is to act actively throughout our life.

You only mentioned the right side of the "technology" coin: what about all what you ignored? I do not think this theme to be too complicated to be discussed on a web-site, but surely if you had to mantain an idea about technology you should have, at least, taken into account all the aspects; only secondly, you would analyse the one you prefer, in order to be the more objective possible. This is a criticism i could elaborate to anyone on this debate, and more generally, on this site. It lacks in reasoning, in fact most people answer questions without having fully understood the answer, emphasysing the favourite aspect of technology, ingoring the others. What about the technology used by armies, and nations? And, not to be so drastic, do you really think internet and whatever medical technology are totally "good"? It all improves humanity? Why? Simply because it helps us to live longer? Baudelaire, unfortunately famous exclusively for his poems, once said why should we all live longer? Why telephones, telegraphs? This question has even more sense if you wonder about the conditions in which we all live today: we ignore ourselves, often we kill, we exploit eachother. But we are all proud to have discovered the cure to a specific disease: oh that's right the point. We all needed it.

War is death. No matter what you are fighting for. How can be religion causing wars? Do not hide behind old rocks, guys. Man is guilty. We all are, on a different quality level; especially when we do not understand that if throughout years populations fought for religions, those people, those religions were fake. Religion itself asks no war. Man does, in order to get what he wants to: money, slaves, women, colonies. So he uses religion to give common people stronger reasons to move their asses and march thousands miles away to fight who-knows-who, for an after-life reward. I'm feeling ashamed for all those who answered "No", justifying themselves saying that sometimes it is correct for men to fight for their religions. War has nothing to do with religion.

When dolphins or whatever species will take over for us, we wouldn't be so pro-scientific experimentation. Never forget this world is a present, which we are nothing but a part of. Respecting it, would turn ourselves into humans. We would never be called homo consumens again, as we, unfortunately, are nowadays.