Key

You are very welcome. Hope you got what you needed. Everyone should help a brother or sister out from time to time, as they may need it themselves sometime. Blessings and peace.

Ears growing back? That's a new one on me. Makes it especially hard for me to believe. Sorry.

"Fanatics" was an allusion to a few other major religions, not to atheism.

True. Misconception plays because there is no kind of mission statement for the atheist's belief. Also, I find the lack of need for "convert or slay" mentality that a few fanatics seem to demonstrate.

Interesting. Some may say Jesus is an example of extreme pacifist according to the one version you state. Yet, you clearly still respect Him, though.

Might this be a "Letter of Good Standing" that is required? If so, that is obtainable via ULC bookstore website. If not, then I'm sure someone may have an answer for you soon.

Perhaps, but it is still communicating, or advocating, a belief. On a stage such as this forum, everyone deserves some respect for their opinion and/or belief, accepted or not. At least until a debate becomes a personal heated exchange, at which point respect is obviously lost. It also is one thing to acknowledge neither participant is willing to change their minds to the other's view, but it is another to continue being provoked for it.

Me thinks it is misguided logic that if one does not believe in a god or gods, there would be nothing to "preach" about. And, yes, I agree it is upsetting that anyone could be denied the same respect another receives for performing the same service of informing about their belief system, or lack thereof.

Simply awesome. True religious freedom in action!

Thank you. Was an interesting read. Wish I could be as clear with my belief system as you, but I am as yet to be sure of all of it.

What few stories of Norse mythology I've read growing up have been more enjoyable, and somewhat more believable to me than Greek or Roman mythology (of which most are the same as they were borrowed from each other, as far as I'm aware).

Great analogy that makes a equally great point. Thanks for that.

All good advice, Dianna.

Apologies. I should have referred to the treadmill part of your response in regards to the use of "Why" and "Why not". minus the philosophical adjective.

I enjoy a sense of comaraderie, even when at odds with someone in a thread. It is all in the spirit of sharing and learning.

I agree, wholly. A fact that even science can't deny.

Perplexed. How'd you connect my response to your scenario? I was stating that emotion could be a learned response but does not analyze, whereas intellect does. In your scenario, it may not necessarily be lack of definitive moral convictions that causes one to not act, it might just be fear of possible consequences if action is chosen. There are people in the world who prefer self preservation at the expense of others, unfortunately. In such case, I wouldn't call that being neutral, but rather isolationist. And I agree it isn't always a safe way. There may be moral people, but it's the moral practice that is questionable. Until one finds themselves where they must use their morality, one can't be absolutely sure how they will respond, but can only speculate, most often favorably.

Yes and no. Emotion can be a learned response, as well, not just a neural dohickey chemical thingy. For instance, using the boiling pot scenario, after having been burned before by either touching the pot or the scathing water at some point in life, one would view future boiling pots with some contempt, for lack of a better definition, in their discretion of it.

Emotion doesn't analyze. It's a reaction to circumstances or experience, therefore a learned response. Intellect does analyze. Which is to say, it looks at solutions and possible outcomes based on past experience and common sense. Think of a boiling pot. Emotion knows to react with pain or contentment depending on how one deals with the pot, at the time. Whereas, intellect helps determine what action one takes before dealing with the pot, based on foreseeable outcomes that past experience has taught. However, it is possible for one to absently not use their intellect and touch the boiling pot unprotected, causing emotion to fill us with enragement, sorrow, pain, embarrassment, or any wide range of combinations. As for your first question, not an easy one to answer. Depends on the quandary at the time. Much like asking why, which requires a different answer for elaboration each time it's asked.

We all die. So death isn't as important as how we might have lived in our last moments before it. Such as: saving the life of another in a burning building, spreading joy to others that might not have had it otherwise without you, etc. So it must be that life is most important, to me, anyway.

Yes, but also proves my point. And Brother Kamen's, as well.

Perhaps even united in one persona?

Very informative. Thank you for the background and history lesson, Rev Bates. Often folks are ignorant of the past when forging toward a goal of limitations. What is right for the conscience of one is not right for all, I am sure Madison would say.

I, personally, don't think the chart thing was meant to be a tool, except to those whom may take such things seriously. I rather fancy it as an amusing bit of entertainment and thought provoker.

Why?