Coming from a life where my parents were often incorrect, or downright asinine, I can complete and utterly say that not letting kids speak their minds is a terrible thing to do. I would often argue with my parents about things they were entirely wrong about - whether it was something I was being accused of, or something I wished to do that they didn't want me to (No, not drugs). Think about it. Merely because they are one's parents, does this mean they are correct all the time?

Considering the possibility that Jesus might have been nothing more than a preacher-philosopher, I would say it's quite possible, then, for anyone to be just like Jesus - especially if they can get a lot of people to write hyperbolized stories about him.

Speaking of which... Anyone here think anyone can become like Goku?

The article was entirely biased toward Christianity - especially at the end, where a quote from the Old Testament appears (Note that this cannot possibly be a Jewish reference, because it would not be called the Old Testament). While an argument stating that the government should not be controlling where individuals pray, or something of this nature, would have been entirely unbiased, one stating the government should not try and control where CHRISTIANS pray, where CHRISTIAN symbols go, and that like, is entirely biased.

One of the main tenents of science is that nothing can be proven. No one feigns that the Big Bang most definitely happened - in fact, now scientists are claiming that Big Bangs happen all the time, and are not a special occurence at all. If anyone were to claim that, without a doubt, the Big Bang happened, they'd be liars - and unscientific. However, it is the best explanation available when looking at the facts. God, however, is not even reasonably provable. Evolution explains everything that a theist can try to explain through God - why beauty exists, how the world is complex and how it formed that way, why prayer is helpful to humans (Note that I did not say that prayer works, but merely that it is helpful to humans). While Evolution is the best theory we currently have to explain these things, it is not the answer-all theory. It may, indeed, be proven incorrect sometime in the future.

I never stated it was irrelevant. I was merely stating that the reasoning behind this need not have anything to do with the actual choice of being an atheist.

No. (And while I'd like to leave it at that, I obviously cant, so.....)

This leaves open the possibility of one coming in and arguing from such childish arguments as, "No, you're wrong, cause I said so." About 33 characters, give or take a character. Entirely pointless, entirely meaningless, and entirely fallacious, but none the less something which I experience from ill minded people on a regular basis. Debating should be between individuals willing to take the time to think out their position and argue about it intelligibly. 50 characters, for all its annoyances, is not nearly as bad as it could be. (Note that my opening line, including the spaces and parentheses, is 71 characters, and 58 without the spaces. It took me nothing more than a moment to write.)

Such a law has serious flaws to it.

To begin with, consider a scenario where an 18 year old boy has a child since he was 16. Unplanned, unexpected, a mistake if you will. The 16 year old boy decides to keep the child, and attempts to do his best. Now let's say a war were to break out. At age 18, this boy, now a man, decides he wants to fight for his country. If we have a country where this is sort of the status quo (Consider the current levels of teen pregnancy) less people will be eligible to join the military. Further, even in peace times, the amount of people protecting the country from potential threats would also be dwindled down. The law wouldn't be able to truly cover these possibilities because they are common place and purely accidental.

Further, the law would have to state which kind of family a soldier could not have, for is not your parents part of your family? I'd be willing to bet that, statistically (And no I don't have any to back me up on this, so I admit the possibility I'm wrong) that most of the current individuals fighting in our armed forces are individuals who, if not for the military, would still be living with their parents for one reason or another. I'm currently 21 and am in this scenario. Because i have siblings and a mother, should this not bar me from military service? If all we can get in our military is those who have no relatives, or only distant ones, then our military would be run thin and almost meaningless.

On a moral level, I don't see a moral quarrel with the act in and of itself. The immoral thing to do would be to purposely have a family in order to cause them suffering by going to war and never being with them. Note the word purposely.

I'm unsure of what you're saying, but from the way I'm understanding it, by your logic, science doesn't exist, logic doesn't exist, philosophy doesn't exist, and debating doesn't exist. So why are you here?

I do not believe we have the option to give up - taking such a choice is just as bad as anything else currently wrong with the world. What it will take is cooperation and getting our facts straight - Is global warming truly occuring? What can help the global economy and what cannot help it? Why do people think that we're fucked for stupid things like believing homoexuality is okay? <_<

I see no reason why we cannot do these things, with a little effort, time and a lot less pride.

I find autocorrect to be extremely hilarious... Sadly, few of my friends find it nearly as funny :P

The health benefits can be explained, or hypothesized about, in terms outside of religious terms. The social aspect of religion is intergral to human health, further, a firm set of beliefs can help to ward off depression, anxiety, and many other things which can lower one's lifespan.

The statistics which show individuals who go to church live longer prove nothing about why this happens - as it says clearly in #5.

What school did you go to where they presented a godless version of Evolution?

I dunno about anyone else, but the school I went to presented Evolution as being a process where God was unnecessary - not one in which God was necessarily absent. The question of whether or not God was involved in our evolution is a matter for philosophy and religion, not science. The idea of God must first be proven for God to move into the question of our evolutionary routes.

I personally think we should hold a class in school in which we discuss such matters as they are - philosophy and religion. To place this sort of thing in the realm of science is a disgrace to science, because it is not scientific at all - it is placing the conclusion before the facts.