It would be better without religion. The christains are christians because religion exists. If religion was exterminated some of the mindless and barbaric acts would cease to exist too or would take another form. The persons are not bad, they are tought to do bad deeds thats all.

I guess he said it all. The policeman would otherwhise use this law as a form of abuse. So this is a good option from president Barack Obama.

"Q134. "Is there anything in the Constitution, Bill Of Rights or any Amendment that adds to discrimination due to race, color, or creed? I thought that 'Sexual Preference' was added, but I am told that I am wrong."

A. There is nothing anywhere in the Constitution that specifically bans discrimination based on sexual preference. There is not even a direct ban on discrimination based on race, color, or creed. What we do have are provisions that are often interpreted that way. The 15th and 19th Amendments, which ensured that blacks and women could vote, hint at a policy of non-discrimination, but they are actually quite specific. They only involve suffrage and nothing else. However, the due process clause of the 14th Amendment has been interpreted to mean that discrimination based on traits such as race are a violation of due process and not constitutional (when done by the government or an agent of the government). It is a complex issue. Again, a ban on discrimination based on sexual preference is not a part of the Constitution, but has been extended, to some degree, based on the 14th Amendment by the courts. The subject is far from a closed one at this time."

In fact I´m socked. I searched everywhere and it seems the USA doesn´t have any non-descrimination laws :O

I guess you´re right but this is wrong. I live in Portugal and even we have laws regarding this matter. Well I guess leggally speaking you´re right :O

So if you believe in the bible you do believe that God killed over 284.638.000 human beings aproximatedly dont you?

So you acknowlage that your imaginary friend (sorry but to my understanding he passes not but that) is just a genocide?

Well if we are talking about a chicken egg and not an egg with a chicken then you´re absolutely right.

According to modern philosopher Jacqueline Salk, the question is plainly answered by the fact that eggs existed in other species before chickens ever walked the earth. Consequently, the answer is simple: the egg came first.

Let us assume that E(Q) was not a chicken egg. A species may be defined by certain aspects of its genetic sequence. The mutation in the genetic sequence that would change the non-chicken species into a chicken could only occur, as all mutations occur, during cell division (unless the egg was zapped by radiation into the proper genetic sequence, but in that case it would be a chicken egg). That would mean that after the first division, one cell would be a chicken cell and the other a non-chicken cell, after the 2nd division 2 chicken and 2 non-chicken cells, and after the nth division 2n-1 chicken and 2n-1 non-chicken cells. Thus the final bird would not be a whole chicken, meaning that Q is not a chicken. But since Q was defined as a chicken, this must be a contradiction, meaning that the assumed statement was false. Thus E(Q) must have been a chicken egg, and since chronologically E(Q) must have preceded Q, the egg must have come before the chicken.

So, to me we can define the species by the contents of an egg.

Of course this may change with each person point-of-view.

Of course not. Even though most people downvote the others just because they don´t necessarely agree with the other one point of view, that doesn´t mean that is the correct thing to do. In fact it´s the oposite of correct. We should only vote down if it´s spamming, incredibly bad written, or a complete nonsense.

And by non-sense I mean:

Question:

Hey do you like cookies?

Stupid Answer:

Like. A few days ago i found a coin on the floor and it had a strange smell. How strange is that?

This is a non-sense and needs to be voted down. Now voting just because we don´t agree is illogical. This site has the porpose to debate ou diferent ideas.

Oh so you believe that the first generation of eggs from the first chicken would be considered a real chicken egg? Yeah you´re right on that view.

But if I understood correctly we´re trying to figure out if the chicken came first or the egg. Not necessarely a chicken egg. But the animal inside that egg.

Did I misunderstood the question? If I did I beg your pardon but as I told you before I really lack the skills to talk a correct English.

I completely support your argument. I tend to use the word faith as a prove that to have faith is not necessarely the belief in something whitout a reason rather is believing in something based on evidences from the past. As you may realized it I do not use the word faith as in relegious terms.

Yes you´re right, the human race will gradually continue to accept each other even if in a slow progression.

Think on some religion as a way for people to do not panic. It´s sad to need to believe in something illogical but it has the same porpose that the nazi´s showers. When nazi´s saw that the jews were starting to reallizing that they were all going to die and started panicking, the nazis lied to the jews and told them that they were going to work. Even though most of the jews knew that they were going straight to dead they choose to believe in everithing else rather than they were going to die. Religion brings hope to the people.

Even though I an atheist I can partially understand why people choose to believe in an illogical God. It´s almost a need to fell safe and to fool themselfs that necesseraly has to exist a allmighty being thats gives them morals.

I hope my exemple isn´t taken in the wrong way but it is a way to show you my point. And basicly you´re right of course.

When I say faith is based on a logical view of course. Not the religious view in that we believe in nothing based on nothing.

You did. So if a non-chicken produced a egg that had a chicken inside then we can determine that the inside animal was a chicken and that the animal that produced the egg was not. So we can reach the conclusion that the animal wich is produced inside the egg is the determinating factor and not the animal that pruduced the egg. Right?

So do you think if I say the egg came first (based on what I explained above) am I right?