D'Souza asks why no one asks Atheists to speak at tragic events, and I too question this.   Why do people look for supernatural comfort?  Why is faith in your fellow man not enough?  Perhaps this is a poor time to speak of "faith in your fellow man," after the acts of a sociopath, but how could the explanation of supernatural evil be any more comforting than the idea that it is just one disturbed individual.

It seems that when these people are trying to show you their faith they always relay their entire life story. I patiently waited and listened, hoping that something here would help explain why someone would choose to hold such a dismal world view. Drugs, womanizing, and abuse were what drove him to such a place. He spoke of demons and gods speaking to him and how he now has forged a personal relationship with the Christian god, who now speaks to him. I'm not judging, but it seems like a more difficult path to take than to just turn yourself around. But everyone needs a unique combination of answers.

Despite all the media coverage of the wars and conflicts in the various areas of the world, I still really believe that the world is generally a good place. I don't think we require divine intervention, or any sort of savior. The state of the world is constantly improving. Change takes time, and changing people takes longer, but the world IS getting better, NOT worse. Look for it. Really look for it, and you will find it.

Apologies to anyone who got a 'preachy' or 'self-help' vibe from this. I did.

The history of marriage is hazy at best, as it goes back beyond record and varies from region to region. In the west, for centuries, if not eons, marriage was practiced to accumulate wealth and to ensure the survival of one's lineage. Religious influences aside, these are the two main initial reasons for this institution neither of which are necessary in today's society. In contemporary society the primary gains, other than social recognition, is tax breaks, hospital rights, and wills. I cannot find a reason why anyone in a serious relationship should be denied any of these rights.

If your arguments against same sex marriages are because it degrades the sacrament of matrimony then perhaps it is indeed to ensnared in religious trappings to belong in our legal system in the first place. Perhaps we should remove it in its entirety and replace it with a legal recognition of a familial unit, which simple allocates the previously specified rights to whomever is within the contractual union. And if you really think that it threatens the values of marriage and family, then perhaps you should be proposing legislation against divorce as well.

What this debate comes down to is a threat to civil liberties. Just because its the way it has always been, does not mean its the way it should always be. If it were so, white land-owning males would be the only ones voting. Even if the vast majority of Americans is against giving these civil liberties to anyone, it is the responsible thing to do. Is it not? Or perhaps I'm just a terrible American.

I would like to give an open challenge to anyone who can give me a non-religiously backed argument against same-sexed marriage. Honestly, I just havent heard any reasons that sound logical yet and I refuse to believe that the world is filled with that many religious bigots.

"You can't blame yourself for what gorillas did." - Lisa, Team America

If we could just treat religion like sex, I think things might work a little smoother.  Keep it in your pants.  Only share it with those people closest to you.  And maybe a few people at parties when you are really drunk.  This analogy kinda breaks down when you get into the realm of internet pornography, but I think you get the idea that I'm going for.

So I plead with you solicitors of religious propoganda, do this little thing for us.  Peddle your wares elsewhere.  Think of the children.

Next I'm afraid she is going to try to separate Tai Chi from the Tao. I can see it: "Turn away from the Tao, for that which is unknowable is inherently evil! Tai Chi's forms mimic congress with the devil! Flowing in harmony with the world is not following Jesus!"

I want to say that this sort of behavior makes me sad, but from a different angle I have to appreciate her entrepreneurship. She sees a demand that people dont even know they have, and develops a product that exploits it. This succeeds for the same reasons preachers in metropolitan areas have huge houses. In this she almost swindles some respect from me. Perhaps I should drop into the religious racket? Write some religious fiction, or perhaps buy an old Food 4 Less and jump into the Wholesale Jesus business.

I believe, and mind you this is supported by amateur survey, that the vast majority of people who believe in Intelligent Design believe in it because they believe in Creationism. Now Creationism as a religious view point is fine, for religious beliefs are not founded to be provable, but to be insightful. I would urge Creationists not to associate themselves with ID with out first researching the topic first.

ID is being dressed up as a scientific theory when it meets neither the national criteria nor the standards of the scientific community for being a scientific theory. Both standards state that it must be disprovable, and I dont see how ID can be. Whether you assume it is a natural or supernatural designer, how can you disprove it? No criteria is provided for this, and it is crutial. They also base their findings on outdated scientific methods. The concept of irreducible complexity which is one of ID's main supporting ideas states that certain things are too complex to have evolved randomly. They usually cite the human eye and human immune system, both of which have shown their respective missing links.

One of the primary goals of the ID supporters is to teach ID in the classroom along side or in place of evolution. This does not seem advizable with ID in its current state. It does not provide any basis for prediction, or any other benefits to the scientific community. Some say that they should at least mention that evolution is an unproven theory and that ID is an alternative theory. If we do this, then where do we draw the line for alternative theories, and who will make that decision? Others say that we should explain the controversy over evolution and ID, but this sounds like a topic out side the scope of a science class and more suited to a political science class. In my oppinion ID shows more kinship with philosophical thoeries than with science and would be an excellent addition to such a class. Unfortunately most public schools dont teach political science or philosophy, so I dont really see a place for it. I would concede it is worth mentioning in the science class that macroevolution has not been proven and that other alternative theories exist.

Politically the movement seems as though it is pushing ID as creationism, or at least by advocates of having creationism in public schools. These people would likely disagree with me, but I call them as I see them. Granted the majority of U.S. citizen's are of some Christian denomination, but it is unjust for the majority to enforce its views on minorities.

In short, Intelligent Design in its current state offers little to no benefit to the scientific community, and I would advise people not to side with it uninformed. ID is making a mockery of both science and religion, so I would advise Creationists to stick to their ideas rather than adopting ID.

"A few harmless flakes working together can unleash an avalanche of distruction." - dispair.org