I can accept that given that we agree what "reality" means.   

Okay.

Becasue on a given subject, right or wrong, good or bad, correct or not, and true or not true are realities of life. Realities of life goes to truth which is neither yours nor mine but is consistent.  

Sorry but I can't help picking on this one particular paragraph of yours. Please, oh please do tell how you can prove your beliefs, that there is no God. Please keep in mind that the absence of something does not prove it does not exist.

Since you chose to disregard my last comment about the Big Bang theory I will give you another chance to respond to me. I believe in the Big Bang theory, you said you didn't (not sure why though you being very scientific and all) According to science no object can move on it's own without a force behind it and this force has to come from somewhere. if the Big Bang theory is true and 2 objects did collied and created the Universe and scientist believe, how can you explain how these objects moved? It is said everything has a beginning. Somewhere along the lines these objects started moving towards each other, how? Answer me that and perhaps you can get me to drop my religion.

 I cautioned you about extremes, but it doesn’t really matter here. It is so seemingly easy, to place EVERYTHING in the category of right or wrong … but in “our” reality too many things fall into the infamous “Grey Area”  where things like maybe, some, in return for, no frigging way, seems reasonable etc. (where we actually live) can be enjoyed. It is always a matter of extreme.

Now if you want to talk about infanticide (I DO NOT), I do not think you or I will have any disagreements here whatsoever (strange huh) … Right OR wrong absolutely applies here.

But if you want to infringe on my right of way … there has to be much middle ground else we might find living conditions … like we have now. No one needs to sacrifice their morals or beliefs (or lack thereof) for anyone else (trying to stay neutral). It can be a voluntarily achieved … but loses all meaning when forced.

The moral of the story (to coin a phrase) … is that it is seldom just 2 opponents, nor does it normally fall into the realm of right or wrong … unless one just wants to be pigheaded. You would probably be surprised at how much we do in fact have in common … we JUST have ONE real “(disagreement)” and we need to try and respect each other when possible.

Trying real hard to stay away from ‘the truth’ here, already know where that leads … but it most assuredly IS constant.

You see, this one is quite simple ... I do not believe in god ... so I have nothing at all to prove here to you or anybody else. I suppose I could make the argument that there is nothing easier than proving that nothing exists ... isn't that sort of self-explanatory?

I had this somewhat nicely written … but decided this was a much better approach than fetching a bunch of data that would be meaningless to you, sorry, but you really bore me. Just think your question through … I’ll help.

Since you chose to disregard my last comment about the Big Bang theory not true

I will give you another chance to respond to me. Thank you

I believe in the Big Bang theory, you said you didn't (not sure why though you being very scientific and all) Sure, no problem, hehehe

 According to science no object can move on it's own without a force behind it and this force has to come from somewhere. Scientific mastery ... ok??? 

If the Big Bang theory is true and 2 objects did collided and created the Universe and scientist believe, how can you explain how these objects moved? You got me … you figure it out, let me know ok. I just cannot keep this pace up, whew ... Sorry, just too much meaningless nonsense here to try and filter for intelligence.

 It is said everything has a beginning. Is that so … Amazing, thanks for the heads up sport.

Somewhere along the lines these objects started moving towards each other, how?  You got me … you figure it out, let me know ok. You see, I was not there and my grandpa is not here to ask anymore, sorry.

Answer me that and perhaps you can get me to drop my religion. If it floats your bubble, more power to you

And when you have made a complete fool of yourself you top your anger off with absolute blasphemy. If there is ANYTHING, anything at all that I could tell you to convince you to give up your faith … well then there wasn’t much faith there in the beginning. I never at any time allowed you or your friends to alter my ‘faith (?) and I never will because there is absolutely nothing you could possibly say to me to change my (it is you know, just not here) except for one thing … Prove you actually have something to pray to (should take the rest of your life because it has never been done before), go figure, and then we can chat.

Try to take this rebuke to mind … because it is a perfect example of the stupid things anger and frustration can drive one to do and say … learn from it or not, but take this bit of constructive guidance.

Do not try to bluff a scientist (enthusiast) from a point of weakness without doing MUCH research first. You should have been taught better than that. You are not prepared for this discussion at all and you do not believe in it any further than you can manipulate it to justify something seemingly important to you, so what, I do not care.

And LASTLY: I have tried to explain myself (atheist and all) to no avail. I became angry (shame on me) and decided I was not going to allow your ‘closed views’ to drive me away yet again … so I started barbing right back. I am now tired of this nonsense. I have few barbs left … and I am not going to try and make you see reason any more. If you want to continue to foist your nonsense on me … JUST GO AWAY! If you could at least pretend to be normal, learn some civility, leave your names behind and speak intelligently bring it on …

On what grounds do you accept a middle between right and wrong, between good and bad, correct or not correct, true or not true?  It seems to me a middle on any of these would bring confusion and chaos.

That "grey area" would be called moral relativism.

I cautioned you about extremes, above, I am not sure I need any grounds here but...

If someone believes in a higher 'calling' of which they vow absolute faith in (understand) ... I could understand a fairly strict true / false philosophy. Of course you KNOW this is not my 'thing'. In (my) life, very little has to be comprehensive nor should it be. I tried to tell you before there are a vast difference between moral stands and everyday life and cooperation.

Can you be so cruel (just a little barb) as to condemn our people to say life and death (right or wrong) decisions … that is what you are asking me … right? Even religion (not all for sure) has some leeway built into it. Else there would no place for you to work in (save, salvage, convert?) because everyone would be like you or I (not my words, yours I think). I would take this one more step and say this is not a real possibility (IMO) because one side or the other will have taken care of any differences long before this point arises.

Relativism: The belief that concepts such as right and wrong, goodness and badness, or truth and falsehood are not absolute but change from culture to culture and situation to situation). I can live with this … but I have some problems with the last 3 words.

Why do you think we have various degrees of punishments for different crimes (even the same crime)? I do not believe we are condoning ANY criminal activity at all because they are all wrong. Do you not see some need in the middle where we can at least address scope? It is wrong to steal a can of beans for your starving family and it is wrong for someone else who murders you and your family (examples all). Do we kill them both (I believe in the death penalty), or do we try to reform (help, save, convert) those with some potential for ‘salvation’ … the infamous Grey Areas.  

What we are saying is that we understand that people are what they are and should be penalized according to the scope or intentions of the criminal. We are NOT endorsing crime in any way … just its severity … and our compassion to give people a chance to correct their internal strife. I used the two extremes above as an example, nothing more.

I know, but right and wrong, good and evil, true and not true are not extremes to me (and I would venture to say not extremes to most of the population)! They are realities of life that everyone of us must deal with in one way or another. Period.

Again, trying to stay with reality here.....Every one of us have thoughts, words and actions that are either right or wrong, good or evil.

When it comes to morals and judgments, we must have right and wrong..we can't get away from it as these are realities of life. Again, put a middle between right and wrong and you end up with moral relativism..which brings on confusion and chaos.

Judging the Holocaust as morally wrong is not an extreme and there is no room for a middle. Same with the terrorist acts of 9/11 and same with Colombine and Virginia Tech massacres.

You are talking about man's justice and true, there are varying ways and degrees of meting out justice. True all crimes against society are wrong. But how do you fit a middle into this...as there is no such thing as half wrong when a crime is committed. Justice is meted out according the law, the crime and the factors involved.

I thought we were making progress, sorry … but I am glad things are mostly civil. Maybe if you told me what you expect of me knowing what you do?  … because you sure got me by the shorthairs … I do not understand why YOU do not understand ME? You obviously do not respect me, nor does it appear you agree with anything I put to paper; everything is somehow perceived as some attack against you or your beliefs. Why do you keep doing this?

RECAP HERE

Title: Common Sense

Sub: Moderate WHAT?

1^st paragraph: Was supposed to say that all sides are controlled by their extreme wings and to NEVER use the word TRUTH … from previous experience. REMEMBER, I thought that was done with???

2^nd paragraph: Was supposed to say that it is the very concept of true or not, good or bad … was what is being USED by seemingly most to promote anarchy. You abort the whole meaning when I am trying to talk black and white or Mexican and American and then you drag it to your dissection table to discuss TRUE and FALSE. Apples and oranges it doesn’t work.

3^rd I am inclined to science and proof for reasonable communication

4^th paragraph: Where are all the moderates that we only hear about?

5^th paragraph: It all boils down to this … “YOU are right … and everybody else is wrong”.

Summary: We are in this mess because all sides believe they are right and everyone else is wrong AND it does not have anything at all to do with TRUE of FALSE or RIGHT or WRONG … it has to do with actual life and the people who live it … REALITY as best I can figure … but even that is no longer base on TRUE or FALSE. We live in sad times and the future looks glum.

I am NEVER EVER talking about the perfectness of an ideology that can do or say no wrong (by decree). What in the world can I rebut with? You have predetermined the right and wrong of it … and that is it. So I stay outside this environment at all costs. This is where you are comfortable and completely protected … and I am not. I do not have any defense at all in there BECAUSE you are comparing ME with GOD or at least his words … and find me failing. Is ok though, I would find the same considering ... SO STOP IT!

The things I discuss cannot be found in your bible (never found anyone living in there) where it is all fuzzy and perfect. Most people close down their shops, walk outside the door and enter a world where the TRUTH takes on new meanings implications and most do not care what YOU personally (or morally) think. Be as righteous as you need to be and never ever be wrong … but all your beliefs are meaningless to the two thugs waiting by your car. Maybe this will make sense: You are concerned with the soul and I am concerned with the person … works for me … wish it would work for you too?

I am ALWAYS discussing MAN’s laws … and you are ALWAYS talking GOD’s. Come on now; ME = ATHEIST = NO GOD … but you just keep trying to force me to defend myself against something I do not believe in … doesn’t that sound pretty stupid to you, TOO? If all you can do is filter out the humanity and insert your ideology … and cannot put anything in some real time today (like right now) perspective there is nothing I can do about it … but we will NOT be chatting much because this is just too much to ask for ... I suspect. Is a shame though ...

As far as the middle ground here...you've pegged it exactly.... there is none, none whatsoever.

That on infanticide we have no disagreement is kinda strange but then again not. You described yourself as an atheist albeit not a typical one. This kinda shows that at least on infanticide you are not a practical Atheist.

............................

Hmmm....if I (Catholic) want to infringe on your right of way (Atheist practicing and propagandizing Atheism)?  Knock, knock. The days are gone that we can define America as a Judeo-Christian nation. Ever since the 50's, a minority of Agnostics, atheists, irreligionists, and secular humanists have taken over the command posts of American culture..that would be government education, the elitist universities including law schools, the MSM, and the entertainment industry.  

These minority of people (whom I put in one grouping called practical atheists) are militant and seek to remove the moral foundations of American law. Promoting hostility toward religion, specifically Christianity, began in earnest in 1962 when prayer was removed from government schools. Through the 60's and 70's and continuing today, practical atheists running the show and close to becoming our de facto state religion, have given the stamp of approval to pornography, fornication, infanticide (abortion), euthanasia, and homosexuality, homosexual "marriage", etc. etc. etc.

So don't tell me that no one needs to sacrifice their morals or belief for anyone else. That's the name of the end game as long as it's the Christian whose the one sacrificing Christian morals or beliefs.  It's getting so that in order to live in our society, participate in economic and political life, people are expected to conduct their lives as though God doesn't exist.

We are. The dialogue is useful; we are focusing on our differences more than we are our agreement.

Yes, I do understand you...just as you understand me. We can't get away from the fact that our understanding of things is based on our different religious beliefs and that shows up in what we write.

I respect you the person, but not atheism. I think a disclination to discuss implies a lack of respect for the other person, an unwillingness to consider his views. But that's not the case here. I read and consider your views; some I agree with and some I don't. 

I agree 100%.  

...................................

It's getting late and I'll take up more of your #8 later.

It just doesn't seem to register and there doesn't seem to be any way for me to explain it … which is strange since you know me so well. Obviously you do not … most obviously. And it is not for a failure on my part to tell you how I feel … it is from your inability to understand or seemingly even comprehend it regardless of what you claim.

We have already established that you are right and I am wrong. That only you know the truth and I know nothing of the sort. We have established that you can manipulate everything into some atheist plot at who knows what. We have established that my opinions, nay my every thought is evil without question. And we have established that I am angry, disgruntled, antagonistic and hostile to your world and everything you believe in … OK … what else is there for you to establish before we can stop all this nonsense. Can we actually begin talking about people and stop talking about YOUR righteous perfectness … sometime soon?

We did not disagree with anything at all here, anything ... and then you manipulate it and somehow I am all wrong. You self-righteous prick … HOW DARE YOU even INSINUATE that being an atheist has any bearing on the value of human life. REMEMBER I am for the people and I leave the souls to you to pollute, as you can. What, am I supposed to do praise you for insulting me whenever possible? It is all YOU … it is always YOU … and personally I think you are a bigoted blowhard and I am going to tell you so every time you try this kind of whatever the hell it is. If this is how it is going to have to be … JUST GO AWAY and go mesmerize someone who cares in such nonsense. Practical atheist … kiss my … you know what. Go away and take your bigotry with you PLEASE!

Is Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stone's song, "I can't get no satisfaction" your motto?

The subject was a middle ground and you first brought up infanticide. How can you say that I manipulate it and somehow you are all wrong when I said:

So now you're not satisfied, it's not enough that I respect you the person (and after the childish name-calling, I'm beginning to think twice) I must also respect Atheism and by atheism I mean both practical and theoretical. Well, I don't and never will.

Atheists are always theoretical atheists, but some atheists practice both practical and theoretical atheism. Some practice only theoretical atheism. When you wrote that you are an atheist albeit not a typical one, and becasue of your pro-life stance on infanticide, I was beginning to think that you are a theoretical atheist.

So, yes, check history and you'll find that Atheists and Atheism have a great bearing on the value of human life. (Just think of Atheistic Communism). In the USA, Practical Atheists came out of the closet in the 60's and practical Atheism continues in the form of approval of sexual liberty, (don't know your position on this), infanticide, euthanasia, porn, fornication, etc.

You know Boobz, you are one strange yet interesting person. You get offended when people state their point of view which in their beliefs negates your point of view but you seem to ignore or don't realize that by the same token your point of view does the same to them without caring if they get offended. I enjoy debating, arguing, etc with you, but if you are gonna be so sensitive to other peoples opinions simply because you feel somehow you just are being put down, held back, ripped of your rights, then maybe you need to stop commenting and posting on this site. People have the right in this country to believe in something and defend that belief (as long as it's not against any standing law that is) which is what makes this country so great but if it were up to people like you, only your beliefs would be supreme and that goes against everything this nation was built on.

You don't have the willingness, ability or desire to accept people for who they are. You want the world (or at least the people of this country) to see things your way or else you will cry foul and that is very, very wrong. This is the kind of mentality people in dictatorships have, just look at what has happened recently in the Middle East with people getting tired of being told their opinions don't count and having the power to take that right away.

At this point I don't care if you are insulted by what I just said. I tend to be honest about my opinions and you need to be told these things because you cry so much every time someone tells you that you are wrong on something. What's wrong, you don't have the strength to fight for what you believe in? To defend your beliefs? Is giving up the only thing you are capable? Children cry because they have no power to change or get what they want when they demand it.

I am truly tired of people like you who seem to think you have some kind of right to be rude, insult, verbally abuse and even generalize us as evil or something just because you are a minority. If you don't like who we are then that's too dam bad. Your options are to live with us or take the next shuttle flight to the nearest habitable planet cause unless you go on a "Crusades" style killing spree, there is nothing else you can do about it. Period.

I wonder, when you see someone and fall in love at first site, when you have sex with someone, when you chat with a person at a bar or a store, when you hug and kiss your mom, nephew, cousin or grandmother and anyone of them might have a religious faith, do you ask them first if you don't know or isolate yourself from them just because of this?

As a person who loves humanity and life I can't see how anyone could be atheist if this requires them to separate you from the rest of the religious world just because you are unwilling to get along with them. Although i can't say the same about other non-christian religions, I would rather believe in God and share in the caring for the rest of my human race than to spend the rest of my life wishing the majority would simply disappear and take their "Gods" with them. Sounds to me like your problem is more of a loneliness problem than it is about a faithless one.

You make the same mistake of your opponents.  You try to assign a "truth" to an opinion instead of facts. Facts have truths.  Opinions do not.

There is only one truth in any situation.  There are many opinions, but they are not by necessity true.

If you want to argue truth, state facts.  If you want to argue opinion, do not call it truth.