Could We Blame Lack of Religion and the Liberal Culture of Death?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

glutenberg

Golden Member
Sep 2, 2004
1,941
0
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: alchemize
I don't think it's a culture of death. It's aethiesm, youth, and left wing ideology.

We continually see leftist posters trying to tie christianity and right-wing ideology directly to acts of violence (i.e. abortion clinic acts of terror). So I would think now that we have a pattern of school shootings where the shooters clearly were not christian and hated christians (ala columbine, cho, etc.) that aethiesm and violent left wing ideology in youth are correlated with massacres?

Now of course, the common element could be mental illness, but since the lefties in the forum will never subscribe to that theory, neither shall I :D

"We continually see leftist posters trying to tie christianity and right-wing ideology directly to acts of violence "

You mean like "tieing" Christianity to the crusades? It is tough work, but somebodys got to do it! I guess that is my "youth" talking... I remember things like the Crusades or missionaries and the conquistadors in America because I am young I guess...

I am not atheist(which believes that god does not exist), so there goes that... "left wing ideology".. well, I'm not a democrat. Generalizations... everyone likes to throw them around like they are worth anything.

Sure, crusades included! You're a prime example of the poster I mentioned! I'm glad to see we agree. Right wing christians shoot at abortion doctors, left wing agnostics/aethiests shoot up schools. But I think if you look at the scoreboard - the lefties are definitely winning!

And the old "I'm not a democrat, I'm independent" garbage from posters like you gets old. Frankly, I've never seen you post one single non-left wing post (where you state a political opinion). Feel free to correct me...by posting evidence please not by "because I said so".

Cho likened himself to Jesus Christ. I don't see where you're getting your facts that he was an atheist liberal.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
He was an English Major, enough said :p

But he definitely had a lot of bad things to say about "Christians" in general. Comparing yourself to someone that was crucified is quite different than believing, no? Unless you are saying that everytime Cartman says "Jesus Christ!" on SouthPark he's professing his love for the Savior?

Maybe I should point out the part of my post that the less intelligent democra....err "independents" seemed to miss...

"Now of course, the common element could be mental illness, but since the lefties in the forum will never subscribe to that theory, neither shall I"

 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: alchemize
I don't think it's a culture of death. It's aethiesm, youth, and left wing ideology.

You don't need religion to have morals

Of course you don't. Of course, without a guiding religion, you do have the absolute freedom to define and pick and choose whatever morals you see fit, no?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Yeah if you listen to/read what he was saying, he was complaining about the hedonism present on the campus. At one point he says he saw "promiscuity" in the eyes of a girl. This doesn't seem particularly left wing to me, if anything it seems hyper conservative.

That's not what's important though. Are you people so desperate for any percieved 'victory' in your endless dance of talking points that you're trying to attribute the actions of a single person out of 300 million to a political party that you don't agree with? Give me a break. Add in the Columbine killers, or all mass school shooters in the last decade. How many do you have? 10 people or less out of probably 350-400 million people that have lived in the US during that time? Are you really going to draw a meaningful conclusion on the interplay of politics or policies on the actions of these kids when most of these kids didn't even care about or even know they existed?

Doctor assisted suicide helped lead to someone lashing out because they felt impotent? The war in Iraq made him kill these people? What about easy access to abortion? Maybe if he'd waited until yesterday's supreme court ruling limiting partial birth abortion he would have changed his mind. The Crusades have something to do with this? I guess the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs is somewhat to blame as well then.

This argument is pathetic.
 

smashp

Platinum Member
Aug 30, 2003
2,443
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
How are hunters and gun lovers not a culture of death?
Which side of the debate wants unlimited abortions?
Which side wants doctor assisted suicide?

So called ?culture of death? may be a little over blown but it is clear which side has a higher value for human life.

the one trying to get our soldiers out of Iraq.
 

bdude

Golden Member
Feb 9, 2004
1,645
0
76
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: alchemize
I don't think it's a culture of death. It's aethiesm, youth, and left wing ideology.

You don't need religion to have morals

Of course you don't. Of course, without a guiding religion, you do have the absolute freedom to define and pick and choose whatever morals you see fit, no?

People pick and choose morals regardless of whether or not they believe in a god.

Justification always comes after the fact.
 

Bumrush99

Diamond Member
Jun 14, 2004
3,334
194
106
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: alchemize
I don't think it's a culture of death. It's aethiesm, youth, and left wing ideology.

You don't need religion to have morals

Of course you don't. Of course, without a guiding religion, you do have the absolute freedom to define and pick and choose whatever morals you see fit, no?

You mean just like religious people do? Let me ask you do you sacrifice animals to appease god? Do you think people should be stoned for breaking the Sabbath? Or eating shrimp?

Your comments are beyond assinine, people of every religion, pick and choose their morality. For every pious religious saint there is a preacher prying on the poor, commiting adultry or do other "demonic" acts. Lets not even talk about what some morally superior Catholic priests have been doing for centuries, which was and still is being covered up by the Church.

Stop with your ridiculous arguments about picking morals. At least people with an open mind can adjust their morals, for example a family that has a gay child can accept their own child rather than stoning them or wishing them to hell because all of their morals were predefined at birth because they just happened to be born a certain religion beyond their choosing.
 

smashp

Platinum Member
Aug 30, 2003
2,443
0
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: alchemize
I don't think it's a culture of death. It's aethiesm, youth, and left wing ideology.

You don't need religion to have morals

Of course you don't. Of course, without a guiding religion, you do have the absolute freedom to define and pick and choose whatever morals you see fit, no?

God Gave man Free Will, You have the ability to accept god, Deny god, Chose your God, or decide on a lack there of.

Man also has the free will to pick and chose morals as easy as they pick a religion.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: Bumrush99
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: alchemize
I don't think it's a culture of death. It's aethiesm, youth, and left wing ideology.

You don't need religion to have morals

Of course you don't. Of course, without a guiding religion, you do have the absolute freedom to define and pick and choose whatever morals you see fit, no?

You mean just like religious people do? Let me ask you do you sacrifice animals to appease god? Do you think people should be stoned for breaking the Sabbath? Or eating shrimp?

Your comments are beyond assinine, people of every religion, pick and choose their morality. For every pious religious saint there is a preacher prying on the poor, commiting adultry or do other "demonic" acts. Lets not even talk about what some morally superior Catholic priests have been doing for centuries, which was and still is being covered up by the Church.

Stop with your ridiculous arguments about picking morals. At least people with an open mind can adjust their morals, for example a family that has a gay child can accept their own child rather than stoning them or wishing them to hell because all of their morals were predefined at birth because they just happened to be born a certain religion beyond their choosing.

Beyond asinine? I'm sorry the only person with an asinine argument brought to the table is you...your emotions on this subject are clearly out of control that you are incapable of reason. I hope you aren't armed.

Each church/religion defines it's morals, some broadly, some loosely, but almost all are debated and argued and written down in great detail. Whether the members, priests, etc. choose to follow those set morals is irrelevant. The morals are clearly spelled out.

People who follow no religion set their own morals, they have absolute freedom to do so because no exterior entity is defining them. What's unclear about either of those statements? I'm drawing no conclusion about which is better or worse (unlike you).
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Non religious people do not form their own moral code all by themselves. Plenty of exterior entities define them. Their moral code is subject to the same evolutionary genetic tendencies as everyone else's, and is also subject to the socialization caused by the prevailing moral code of the society around them.
 

bdude

Golden Member
Feb 9, 2004
1,645
0
76
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Bumrush99
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: alchemize
I don't think it's a culture of death. It's aethiesm, youth, and left wing ideology.

You don't need religion to have morals

Of course you don't. Of course, without a guiding religion, you do have the absolute freedom to define and pick and choose whatever morals you see fit, no?

You mean just like religious people do? Let me ask you do you sacrifice animals to appease god? Do you think people should be stoned for breaking the Sabbath? Or eating shrimp?

Your comments are beyond assinine, people of every religion, pick and choose their morality. For every pious religious saint there is a preacher prying on the poor, commiting adultry or do other "demonic" acts. Lets not even talk about what some morally superior Catholic priests have been doing for centuries, which was and still is being covered up by the Church.

Stop with your ridiculous arguments about picking morals. At least people with an open mind can adjust their morals, for example a family that has a gay child can accept their own child rather than stoning them or wishing them to hell because all of their morals were predefined at birth because they just happened to be born a certain religion beyond their choosing.

Beyond asinine? I'm sorry the only person with an asinine argument brought to the table is you...your emotions on this subject are clearly out of control that you are incapable of reason. I hope you aren't armed.

Each church/religion defines it's morals, some broadly, some loosely, but almost all are debated and argued and written down in great detail. Whether the members, priests, etc. choose to follow those set morals is irrelevant. The morals are clearly spelled out.

People who follow no religion set their own morals, they have absolute freedom to do so because no exterior entity is defining them. What's unclear about either of those statements? I'm drawing no conclusion about which is better or worse (unlike you).

So, you make a broad statement in which the "blame" is placed on [atheism], youth, and left wing ideology.

And then explain that you have drawn no conclusion about which is better or worse.

And then your subsequent underlying justification here being that one of the likely causes for these mass murders is that one who is atheist has no moral compass?

Please, it's as clear as day what you believe to be "morally" superior. Don't try to state otherwise that you have not drawn any conclusions because your bias is just as evident as the poster you admonish.


 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Non religious people do not form their own moral code all by themselves. Plenty of exterior entities define them. Their moral code is subject to the same evolutionary genetic tendencies as everyone else's, and is also subject to the socialization caused by the prevailing moral code of the society around them.

I would disagree on semantics. Morality isn't defined by exterior forces. Rather, laws are set forth by the government, and codes or policies set forth by organizations people belong to (i.e. school, workplace) are defined and consequences set forth for violating them.
 

Bumrush99

Diamond Member
Jun 14, 2004
3,334
194
106
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Bumrush99
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: alchemize
I don't think it's a culture of death. It's aethiesm, youth, and left wing ideology.

You don't need religion to have morals

Of course you don't. Of course, without a guiding religion, you do have the absolute freedom to define and pick and choose whatever morals you see fit, no?

You mean just like religious people do? Let me ask you do you sacrifice animals to appease god? Do you think people should be stoned for breaking the Sabbath? Or eating shrimp?

Your comments are beyond assinine, people of every religion, pick and choose their morality. For every pious religious saint there is a preacher prying on the poor, commiting adultry or do other "demonic" acts. Lets not even talk about what some morally superior Catholic priests have been doing for centuries, which was and still is being covered up by the Church.

Stop with your ridiculous arguments about picking morals. At least people with an open mind can adjust their morals, for example a family that has a gay child can accept their own child rather than stoning them or wishing them to hell because all of their morals were predefined at birth because they just happened to be born a certain religion beyond their choosing.

Beyond asinine? I'm sorry the only person with an asinine argument brought to the table is you...your emotions on this subject are clearly out of control that you are incapable of reason. I hope you aren't armed.

Each church/religion defines it's morals, some broadly, some loosely, but almost all are debated and argued and written down in great detail. Whether the members, priests, etc. choose to follow those set morals is irrelevant. The morals are clearly spelled out.

People who follow no religion set their own morals, they have absolute freedom to do so because no exterior entity is defining them. What's unclear about either of those statements? I'm drawing no conclusion about which is better or worse (unlike you).

My morals are defined by doing good. Not by some ancient work of fiction that needs to tell me how to act. Crime is wrong regardless of your religous beliefs and doesn't take a rocket scientist or an expert on religion to figure it out.

Using your logic, since Islam is supposedly the religion of peace, we shouldn't have any problems with the religion in light of how some extremist members act. Heck they choose not to follow the moral guidelines the religion taught them.

I would argue that people that people don't define their morals based on religion or anything else. Most of it is common sense. Treat people equally. Work hard and provide for your family. Don't steal from others. Be respectful. All of those qualities are basic HUMAN qualities. Of course some people choose to deviate from the norm, but I'd be willing to bet that and equal amount of people that believe in higher power and have a predefined code of ethics are as capable of murder as the non believers, if not more.

 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: bdude
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Bumrush99
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: alchemize
I don't think it's a culture of death. It's aethiesm, youth, and left wing ideology.

You don't need religion to have morals

Of course you don't. Of course, without a guiding religion, you do have the absolute freedom to define and pick and choose whatever morals you see fit, no?

You mean just like religious people do? Let me ask you do you sacrifice animals to appease god? Do you think people should be stoned for breaking the Sabbath? Or eating shrimp?

Your comments are beyond assinine, people of every religion, pick and choose their morality. For every pious religious saint there is a preacher prying on the poor, commiting adultry or do other "demonic" acts. Lets not even talk about what some morally superior Catholic priests have been doing for centuries, which was and still is being covered up by the Church.

Stop with your ridiculous arguments about picking morals. At least people with an open mind can adjust their morals, for example a family that has a gay child can accept their own child rather than stoning them or wishing them to hell because all of their morals were predefined at birth because they just happened to be born a certain religion beyond their choosing.

Beyond asinine? I'm sorry the only person with an asinine argument brought to the table is you...your emotions on this subject are clearly out of control that you are incapable of reason. I hope you aren't armed.

Each church/religion defines it's morals, some broadly, some loosely, but almost all are debated and argued and written down in great detail. Whether the members, priests, etc. choose to follow those set morals is irrelevant. The morals are clearly spelled out.

People who follow no religion set their own morals, they have absolute freedom to do so because no exterior entity is defining them. What's unclear about either of those statements? I'm drawing no conclusion about which is better or worse (unlike you).

So, you make a broad statement in which the "blame" is placed on [atheism], youth, and left wing ideology.

And then explain that you have drawn no conclusion about which is better or worse.

And then your subsequent underlying justification here being that one of the likely causes for these mass murders is that one who is atheist has no moral compass?

Please, it's as clear as day what you believe to be "morally" superior. Don't try to state otherwise that you have not drawn any conclusions because your bias is just as evident as the poster you admonish.

Boy you lefties are stumbling all over each other to brand me a right wing christian, aren't you? Allow me for the THIRD TIME to bring forth my previous statement...

"Now of course, the common element could be mental illness, but since the lefties in the forum will never subscribe to that theory, neither shall I"

See, what I'm doing is illustrating the idiocy of one argument by contrasting it with the idiocy of another. I'm sorry you are too dense to see it.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: Bumrush99

My morals ...doing good. ...ancient work of fiction ...Crime is wrong ...doesn't take a rocket scientist ...Most of it is common sense. ...are as capable of murder as the non believers, if not more.
Distilled it down to your key points :) Your code is superior, how could you live with yourself if it wasn't?

That's getting a little moonbeam-eque :(
 

bdude

Golden Member
Feb 9, 2004
1,645
0
76
Originally posted by: alchemize
Boy you lefties are stumbling all over each other to brand me a right wing christian, aren't you? Allow me for the THIRD TIME to bring forth my previous statement...

"Now of course, the common element could be mental illness, but since the lefties in the forum will never subscribe to that theory, neither shall I"

See, what I'm doing is illustrating the idiocy of one argument by contrasting it with the idiocy of another. I'm sorry you are too dense to see it.

You don't wish to be branded at yet you do so. This entity you call the "left" is as nebulous as your descriptor "right wing christian". I never called you such.

An easy search left or right will bring out numerous documents supporting the idea that mental illness is a common thread throughout many of these tragedies. Another simple search will demonstrate that many on the left subscribe to that vein of thought.

It still remains pretty clear from your descriptions of who these atheists are:
they have absolute freedom to do so because no exterior entity is defining them

That to have this absolute freedom leads to tragedies such as this; as if, to be atheist means that one has the absolute moral freedom to do whatever they wish. Patently false.
 

Bumrush99

Diamond Member
Jun 14, 2004
3,334
194
106
"U.S. citizens have been dumbed-down by years of collectivist drivel taught in schools. Forced into feeling rather than thinking, Americans are at a crossroads. We have become tolerant instead of judicious and fair; inclusive instead of discerning; filled with self-esteem instead of intelligence and wisdom."

I love your signature. I think the world would be a much better place if we taught creationism, that the world was flat and that scientific progress should be stopped at all costs, especially if it involves microscopic cells that are going to be destroyed. Add a little prayer to that mix and all of the worlds problems should go away as we instill intelligence and wisdom through prayer and accepting everything we are told at face value as to not build our self esteem.
The irony is that religion is based on FEELING, it is based on accepting something we have no proof of. The entire basis of religion rests on faith, yet in your mind that is not collectivist and is based on thinking?

 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: bdude
Originally posted by: alchemize
Boy you lefties are stumbling all over each other to brand me a right wing christian, aren't you? Allow me for the THIRD TIME to bring forth my previous statement...

"Now of course, the common element could be mental illness, but since the lefties in the forum will never subscribe to that theory, neither shall I"

See, what I'm doing is illustrating the idiocy of one argument by contrasting it with the idiocy of another. I'm sorry you are too dense to see it.

You don't wish to be branded at yet you do so. This entity you call the "left" is as nebulous as your descriptor "right wing christian". I never called you such.

An easy search left or right will bring out numerous documents supporting the idea that mental illness is a common thread throughout many of these tragedies. Another simple search will demonstrate that many on the left subscribe to that vein of thought.

It still remains pretty clear from your descriptions of who these atheists are:
they have absolute freedom to do so because no exterior entity is defining them

That to have this absolute freedom leads to tragedies such as this; as if, to be atheist means that one has the absolute moral freedom to do whatever they wish. Patently false.
I don't care what I'm branded, I was just making an observation. Where do you get the idea that I don't wish to be branded? ;)

Perhaps I should refer you to an earlier wise man's comments:
"Don't try to state otherwise that you have not drawn any conclusions because your bias is just as evident as the poster you admonish."

As to tieing together the morals discussion to the Cho incident - I see those as two mutually exclusive debates that just happened to come up in the same thread. You are tying them together, not I.

I think that would be an interesting behavioral study. Gather up a few hundred mentally unstable people. Take take about 1/4 and teach them fundamental Christianity, take another 1/4 and teach them fundamental Islam, take another 1/4 and teach them fundamental Judaism, and take the last 1/4 and teach them fundamental aethism (that one would be really tough though, I guess just send them to UCLA?). Then throw them all together on an island and see who kills the most of whom. Then we could see what belief is the "worst" ;)
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: alchemize
I don't think it's a culture of death. It's aethiesm, youth, and left wing ideology.

You don't need religion to have morals

Of course you don't. Of course, without a guiding religion, you do have the absolute freedom to define and pick and choose whatever morals you see fit, no?

So do Christians, unfortunately. Not all, but for many, religion is a la carte.
 

Bumrush99

Diamond Member
Jun 14, 2004
3,334
194
106
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: bdude
Originally posted by: alchemize
Boy you lefties are stumbling all over each other to brand me a right wing christian, aren't you? Allow me for the THIRD TIME to bring forth my previous statement...

"Now of course, the common element could be mental illness, but since the lefties in the forum will never subscribe to that theory, neither shall I"

See, what I'm doing is illustrating the idiocy of one argument by contrasting it with the idiocy of another. I'm sorry you are too dense to see it.

You don't wish to be branded at yet you do so. This entity you call the "left" is as nebulous as your descriptor "right wing christian". I never called you such.

An easy search left or right will bring out numerous documents supporting the idea that mental illness is a common thread throughout many of these tragedies. Another simple search will demonstrate that many on the left subscribe to that vein of thought.

It still remains pretty clear from your descriptions of who these atheists are:
they have absolute freedom to do so because no exterior entity is defining them

That to have this absolute freedom leads to tragedies such as this; as if, to be atheist means that one has the absolute moral freedom to do whatever they wish. Patently false.
I don't care what I'm branded, I was just making an observation. Where do you get the idea that I don't wish to be branded? ;)

Perhaps I should refer you to an earlier wise man's comments:
"Don't try to state otherwise that you have not drawn any conclusions because your bias is just as evident as the poster you admonish."

As to tieing together the morals discussion to the Cho incident - I see those as two mutually exclusive debates that just happened to come up in the same thread. You are tying them together, not I.

I think that would be an interesting behavioral study. Gather up a few hundred mentally unstable people. Take take about 1/4 and teach them fundamental Christianity, take another 1/4 and teach them fundamental Islam, take another 1/4 and teach them fundamental Judaism, and take the last 1/4 and teach them fundamental aethism (that one would be really tough though, I guess just send them to UCLA?). Then throw them all together on an island and see who kills the most of whom. Then we could see what belief is the "worst" ;)

The Christians would blame the Jews for killing Jesus and would wipe them out right away. The Atheist would be seen as heretics and burned by both the remaining Christians and Muslim. The Muslims would then form a Jihad and blow up the Christians :D
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
He was an English Major, enough said :p

But he definitely had a lot of bad things to say about "Christians" in general. Comparing yourself to someone that was crucified is quite different than believing, no? Unless you are saying that everytime Cartman says "Jesus Christ!" on SouthPark he's professing his love for the Savior?

Maybe I should point out the part of my post that the less intelligent democra....err "independents" seemed to miss...

"Now of course, the common element could be mental illness, but since the lefties in the forum will never subscribe to that theory, neither shall I"

You're not seriously trying to claim that Cho was a liberal? Puh-lease.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Originally posted by: jman19
"Liberal Culture of Death" aka more labeling and rhetoric, and no substance. Bravo :thumbsdown:

I think he explained the label:

Well, I'll tell you what, maybe the liberals and their culture of death is the problem, folks. There is a culture of death with liberalism, from abortion on. Embryonic stem cells, you name it, euthanasia? They own that as well as they own defeat in Iraq. Maybe the instant effort to ban God and faith from the public square is a problem here. Maybe the coddling of criminals by liberals, including judges, has created this environment.

Did you read that? Want to disagree?

That's gotta be one of the most moronic statements to come out of that blowhard's mouth and that's saying something. How does that guy still have a radio show?

The truly hilarious thing here is that Rush is pissed about the "drive-by media" and their rush to speculate on whether this incident at VT will spawn a renewed debate on gun control. And yet here he is, in the very same rant, speculating on all sorts of moronic things that could be the reason for Cho's murderous rampage.

Does the outrageous irony from the right every stop? :laugh:
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: Bumrush99
"U.S. citizens have been dumbed-down by years of collectivist drivel taught in schools. Forced into feeling rather than thinking, Americans are at a crossroads. We have become tolerant instead of judicious and fair; inclusive instead of discerning; filled with self-esteem instead of intelligence and wisdom."

I love your signature. I think the world would be a much better place if we taught creationism, that the world was flat and that scientific progress should be stopped at all costs, especially if it involves microscopic cells that are going to be destroyed. Add a little prayer to that mix and all of the worlds problems should go away as we instill intelligence and wisdom through prayer and accepting everything we are told at face value as to not build our self esteem.
The irony is that religion is based on FEELING, it is based on accepting something we have no proof of. The entire basis of religion rests on faith, yet in your mind that is not collectivist and is based on thinking?

That's pretty stupid of you. I didn't realize you were so ignorant. Creationism, at least in the "8,000 year" sense, has been disproven by science. The world of course is not flat, proven many years ago by things called "boats". Stem cell research of course is a complicated modern issue that requires examination at many levels.

It is quite ironic and funny that you will go out of your way to trumpet your own personal moral code as vastly superior, then make broad assumptions on what mine is, then proceed to ridicule it based on those assumptions.

As to the rest of your question (re Faith vs collectivist thinking), that's probably quite a bit off topic and good for another thread.