>>>>Would you object to separate posters/signs around a school that said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Don't steal
>>>>>>Don't Lie
>>>>>>Don't murder your classmate
>>>>>>Don't take something that's not yours
>>><snip>
>>>>>>I'm being facetious of course but that's what six (6) of the ten (10) commandments say.
>>>
>AF>>As Dragan said, these predate the 10 Commandments. They are just common sense if you want to live in a civilized society.
>>
>DD>Really? Where? Cite your sources. Now, they may have been written in some form and that's fine. That doesn't change the fact that the Old Testament is the oldest written source of what we call 'human government' in a formal sense.
>
>What sources? Don't steal, etc. are basic tenets of a society. That is the case if a group of people have to live together. If someone does it he gets expelled from society or worse. That was so with the Egyptians, and the Assyrians and Sumerians and even way, way before with the first bands of hunter-gatherers and their turn into more sedentary, farming communities over 10,000 years ago.
>
>
>DD>Still, that's not the real issue. The issue is that Judeo-Christian thought is absolutely the basis for our current cosiety. Yes, we've strayed from it but it is the basis.
>
>So? That still does not prove much. The Buddhists or Moslems or Shinto, etc. have similar laws.
>
>
>AF>>Not all that the Bible says should be taken literally or is even good. It says "Don't steal". That's good. It also says to kill your children if they misbehave.
>
>
>DD>Not so. Look, what you need to do is investigate the reasons why as I mentioned in another message. What God was doing was educating mankind about the deadly effects of sin. It brings death. This 'misbehaving' children were burning their own babies in fire. If I had a child that did that I'd shoot him personally. I don't think you have an adequate appreciation of what God was protecting the Jews from.
>
>Oh? You'd murder a child like this? Interesting! Would you also stone your wife to death? Say's so in the Bible.
>
>
>DD>Well I suppose from that aspect of the discussion. You do understand that the English translation of the word 'agnostic'' is pretty close to 'ignoramous' don't you? <g> a-gnosko = no knowledge
>
>AF>>You've said that before. It simply means that an agnostic cannot prove the existance or non-existance of God. One way or another. I'm an agnostic as I cannot prove it and neither can you.
>
>DD>I disagree. Look at the design in a flower Alex and tell me there's no designer. If you do that's willful ignorance, not just plain ignorance. There is a difference between the two.
>
>Oh? Now we are turning to creationism vs. evolution? Goody!
>Before we start, have you ever read "On The Origin of Species"? It's still in print. Amazon sells it if you want to read it. It makes for very interesting and subversive ideas.

Alex;

The term “agnostic” to me means a person who does not believe in the existence or non-existence of God. An “atheist” is one who does not believe in the existence of God. No one can “prove” the existence or non-existence of God. Those that believe have faith. Those that do not believe fit into one of the other categories defined previously.

You cannot convince anyone of the existence or non-existence of God by any human means. To do so is an insult to another person’s intelligence and will only lead to argument and conjecture. One either accepts or dismisses the premise, except for the “agnostic”, who is “unsure”. Better to hedge your bets if you are a gambling person! :)

As with any argument the person with the greater skills will win. Winning an argument does not express the truth or reality.

Arguments can be a great source of mental exercise. A very close friend and I would argue for hours about any topic conceivable. We respected each other and it never became personal. The greatest part about this activity was that when concluded we each felt the same. That is we were convinced more than ever before we were correct and the other person was not! At that point we would have a good laugh.

I learned at an early age to not become emotional involved with a discussion. To do so causes problems. Being a third person is a better approach. Therefore, I like to take either side in an argument. This can truly infuriate a Southern Baptist, which occurred more than once. Upon questioning my beliefs in God, a Southern Baptist took off on a tangent directed at me. He kept stating he was a Christian, etc., etc. I stopped him in his tracks and stated, “I am an Original Christian”. He said, “What is that”? I said, “A Catholic”! Now the fun began!

Tom