Still More Things Atheists Didn’t Do

This is another installment in our continuing series of  Things Atheists Didn’t Do.

A pedophile priest, not an atheist, claimed he was only giving his victim anatomy lessons.

Muslims in Pakistan stoned a Christian man to death.  His crime?  Drinking tea at a roadside stall that was designated for Muslims only.

When a Christian church that tortured a gay teen via an exorcism to rid him of his faggy demon was criticized for their stupidity, Dr Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission slammed the critics, accusing them of intolerance.

An Oregon couple let their 15 month child die of pneumonia, refusing medical treatment and praying for her instead.  If her parents had been atheists she would be alive right now.

A orthodox Jewish couple are suing their neighbors, claiming that an automatic hall light, which is triggered by people entering the hall, imprisons them in their apartment.  This, they claim, prevents them from leaving on the Sabbath.  If they were atheists instead of idiots they could leave whenever they want.

Eight people drowned a 22 year old mother of two trying to lift a curse from her.  She would have been much better off with atheist friends.

An Islamic woman starved one of her children to death, after torturing her, because she thought she was possessed.  Her other five children were seriously malnourished.  Too bad her mother wasn’t an atheist.

By Fr. Alphonse de Valk has declared that Atheism is a threat to civilization.  If he were an atheist he’d be smarter than that.  Not to be outdone, Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor has declared that atheists are not fully human.

Opening a dialog between religions may not be a good idea.  Ernest McCullough, a Christan, got into an argument about religion with a Muslim, who ended the debate by shooting him in the leg.

In Maryland, a woman starved her son to death because he wouldn’t say Amen.  She’s expecting him to be resurrected.  That hasn’t happened so far.  Yet another child who would have been much better off with atheist parents.

In India at least 50 people went blind staring into the sun looking for an image of the Virgin Mary.  Atheists are never blinded by the light.

When woman with an atheist boyfriend asked Pat Robertson for advice about finding a middle ground with him, Pat told her to break up with him because he’s “serving the devil.”

In India a “Hindu Taliban” is attacking woman for drinking in bars and dressing inappropriately, including those wearing bathing suits at the beach and t-shirts with pictures of their deities on them.  There are no reports of atheists beating up women over religion.

In Afghanistan a Mullah who spoke out against suicide attacks was murdered by other members of his religion of peace.

In Russia two Jehovah’s Witnesses went on a murder spree killing 13 people to rid the world of sin.  (They should have just become vampires.)

In India two seven year old girls were married to frogs to prevent the disease outbreaks in the village.  Atheists don’t advocate girl-frog marriage.

A pretty sixteen year old girl was stabbed to death by her Muslim brother for listening to rock and roll and wearing makup.  He stabbed her 26 times.  He was preserving the family honor.

 

Our prep courses include the latest set of actualtests test preperation and google adwords certification exams with 100% guarantee for victory in security+ book and certkiller test preperation. Our 000-598 are simply the best in its quality.

Share

984 Comment(s)

  1. Great list… I hadn’t heard about the Maryland thing. That’s disgusting.

    John

    John | Jun 26, 2009 | Reply

  2. There is no end to human cruelty! I’s to bad religion is around to make excuses for it!

    Zedge | Jun 26, 2009 | Reply

  3. I stumble upon such stories all the time. And about atheists being discriminated against in the US Military and stuff like that. The problem is that we serious atheists cannot get together and fight, lobby or voice our opinion as a united group. They do, and win most of the time.
    Sad.

    Diego | Jun 26, 2009 | Reply

  4. In response to the last entry… if she had been an ugly 16 year old girl, it would totally be okay to stab her?

    ellen | Jun 26, 2009 | Reply

  5. this would funny if not so stupid. great site…

    Yahya | Jun 26, 2009 | Reply

  6. Great list, only complaint is the last one is not really religious based, just some demented dipshit.

    Zodiypoo | Jun 26, 2009 | Reply

  7. These are cases of extremists. Give the religious a bad name, not that I condone any of it. There are atheists that are extremists, there are also atheists that are idiots. I know quite a few religious folk that are both practical and intelligent. Just had to be the ‘devil’s advocate’. Also, as far as the military goes, they’ve started a don’t ask don’t tell policy with Neo Nazi’s, it sounds to me like discrimination against anybody isn’t a huge deal to them.

    John | Jun 26, 2009 | Reply

  8. not okay. so, yep! i’m an athiest, to put it in the simplest of terms. but unlike you, i’m not a non-believer filled with hate and incivilety towards all religions on the grounds of their extremists. you are the ones that give us a bad name. and as i read this, i was disguted with “my own kind”. some of these take it to far.

    jenn | Jun 26, 2009 | Reply

  9. No, these cases aren’t of extremists, they of mainstream thought. Your cases of religious folk that are practical and intelligent are the extremists. In fact, you just haven’t seen them when the chips are down. Or you’re not actually talking about religious but spiritual. There is a difference.

    Tell me though, how does an atheist be an “extremist”? Do they stand and yell really loud “I DON’T HAVE A BELIEF IN GOD!” You obviously don’t understand what the hell and extremist is.

    You last sentence makes the least sense. The military has huge discrimination problems. It’s mainly towards nonbelievers… Neo Nazi’s have a believe in god, they are a subgroup in Christianity… if you didn’t know that.

    GMNightmare | Jun 26, 2009 | Reply

  10. What does it matter that she was pretty?

    In focusing on the failings of others we lose sight of the failings in ourselves.

    All things in moderation.

    Brandon M. Sergent | Jun 26, 2009 | Reply

  11. In response to the last entry… if she had been an ugly 16 year old girl, it would totally be okay to stab her?

    What does it matter that she was pretty?

    Ellen, that was just stupid. Brandon, it’s simply part of the story. And while I have many failings too, none of them are caused by or made worse by superstition.

    Great list, only complaint is the last one is not really religious based, just some demented dipshit.

    It is absolutely religious based. Muslims murdering their women in honor killings are a common, every day occurrence.

    There are atheists that are extremists, there are also atheists that are idiots.

    I have met atheists who are extremists (they’re rare, though) I have met atheists who are obnoxious (I’ve been called that myself, and don’t deny it) but I have never, ever met one who was an idiot.

    I know quite a few religious folk that are both practical and intelligent.

    Most of my friends are religious, and they are also practical and intelligent. (I don’t hang out with stupid people – they’re boring and predictable.) But that’s not what these lists are about.

    Dave Hitt | Jun 26, 2009 | Reply

  12. People who believe in absurdities will commit atrocities! I despise religiots.

    proud kuffar | Jun 26, 2009 | Reply

  13. Imagine a world without religion. I wont live
    so long. Sorry about that.

    proud kuffar | Jun 26, 2009 | Reply

  14. Sorry does not fix these things.

    proud kuffar | Jun 26, 2009 | Reply

  15. What are these idiots using for brains? Sheesh!

    proud kuffar | Jun 26, 2009 | Reply

  16. Well no. It would still be bad if she were ugly. Just not as bad if she were hot.

    mike | Jun 26, 2009 | Reply

  17. “Tell me though, how does an atheist be an “extremist”? Do they stand and yell really loud “I DON’T HAVE A BELIEF IN GOD!””

    LOL. That was awesome.

    Heidi | Jun 26, 2009 | Reply

  18. Kuffar, perhaps you should just come in again.

    Johnny V | Jun 26, 2009 | Reply

  19. Ha!!

    good point

    rini6 | Jun 27, 2009 | Reply

  20. “Great list, only complaint is the last one is not really religious based, just some demented dipshit.”

    I disagree with the above. These “honor” killings are based on religion. Women have to remain “pure” and virginal. They cannot be worldly in anyway. Men often use religion to subjugate women in these countries.

    I’m not saying that all Muslims believe in these honor killings, but it is part of the religion, for some.

    rini6 | Jun 27, 2009 | Reply

  21. jenn, why are the beliefs of religious moderates any more respectable than those of religious extremists? They’re still just as irrational and just as fact-free. If we’re concerned with people trying to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible, religious moderates aren’t off the hook.

    Just because a belief is less hazardous does not make it more respectable if it is still just as false.

    Dave – I did my own little commentary on Fr. de Valk’s screed a short while back. The good Father seems to be significantly short on reality and long on fantasy, specifically with his claims on how religiosity affects the general health of a society. If you’d like to read it, check it out here.

    Oh, and one more thing atheists didn’t do: Blame our economic situation on same-sex marriage, abortion, divorce, child abuse, etc. Great googly moogly…

    MikeTheInfidel | Jun 27, 2009 | Reply

  22. A couple of years ago in a ceremony that wasn’t officially legal, some gay friends got married. Just two years later the economy tanked – it must have been their fault. What else could it be?

    Dave Hitt | Jun 27, 2009 | Reply

  23. Well, what did you expect? These are people who put their faiths in logical fallacies, things which have no definitive proof (and the burden of proof, ladies and gentlemen, is on them — not us atheists), and various other supernatural phenomena that they, frankly, lack the ability to understand.

    I suppose the belief in a “higher power”, so to speak, is not “wrong”, per se. I mean, not all religious people are bad, just as not all atheists are bad. Religion, as an idea, is not bad inherently. But it does make people so much more susceptible to being brain-washed. I mean, really. An atheist would have a difficult time being convinced that an oily schmear somewhere is a sign of the Second Coming of Jebus (or something), but a perfectly innocuous Christian might not. And thus starts the slippery slope to irrational belief.

    Religion, though, is such a difficult concept to fight. I mean, all logic says the burden of proof lies on the one who claims existence. Thus, Christians must undeniably confirm the existence of God; Muslims, Allah; and so forth. But it’s frustrating to come up against the “Well, prove he doesn’t exist” brick wall. There is no definitive way to prove non-existence.

    That being said, since people are so willing to believe everything that’s being flaunted as a religion (read: Scientology)… I believe I should start a religion based on pink invisible unicorns. And when a religious fanatic of a major denomination asks me where my proof is? “Well, prove they don’t exist.”

    blufindr | Jun 28, 2009 | Reply

  24. Forgot to check the “Notify me of followup comments” box. Don’t know how to fix that. This is all this post is here for.

    Cheers.

    blufindr | Jun 28, 2009 | Reply

  25. Invisible pink unicorns are the best kind.

    Heidi | Jun 28, 2009 | Reply

  26. So very sad. Collaterally, when I was in law school, I wrote a seminar paper regarding faith healing exemptions to states’ manslaughter charges. The number of parents that didn’t face charges would astound you. And in every case, a simple antibiotic or procedure would have cured the child’s illness. Thankfully, things have started to change but there are still states that allow such a defense. I’d be willing to bet they’re all located in the bible belt.

    matt | Jun 28, 2009 | Reply

  27. @ rini6: “Dowry” and “Honor” killings are indeed
    religion enabled. Women cannot be worldly in any
    way. Hence fully dependent. Mechanism of oppression,yes!

    proud kuffar | Jun 28, 2009 | Reply

  28. I am an atheist living in a muslim country and currently trying to shoot a movie about a father who didnt want his daughter to go to school. when i was telling my story to my teacher (who is one of the most exprienced and famous people of cinema industry in my country) told me that the story doesnt work. girls are not allowed to go to school in some parts of my country and thats partly because of religion – honor of family ect. My professor said that NO FATHER on a personal level would want to keep his cilderen from education/a better life. But there are cicumstances.

    I though about it and he is right i guess. Like the honor killings in which a brother or the father or an uncle goes out and kills the girl, sometimes for something as little as look out the window. I agree that they would all be better off being atheists but as my teacher pointed out its not easy.

    Its very easy to tell them to become atheist from where we are sitting but the world they live in is so diffrent. I believe that no father would want to see his daughter dead. Except some sick cases. But they are still giving out the death order. I m picturing my father killing me for whatever reason – and i know that he d kill himself before he harms me. SO it makes me wonder, what kind of outer pressure they must be under to kill their own kids. it must be more powerful than mere belief. it must be more powerful than fear for their own lives and lives of their childeren. so i think i dont have a right to get out of my chair with all my freedom and choises and oppurtunities to go tell them “become atheists and it ll all be well”.

    I guess if we re really concerned about the people and not only with flaunting our ability to become atheists, there are more important things to do than right lists.

    I agree with every single thing you re saying but it still makes me angry because bad things happen to kids with religious parents and all you are doing right now is saying “i told you”. The only people who read these lists are either already atheist or very prejudiced against atheism.

    this approach is not helping.

    eye_snap | Jun 28, 2009 | Reply

  29. “SO it makes me wonder, what kind of outer pressure they must be under to kill their own kids. it must be more powerful than mere belief”

    There isn’t a force more powerful than belief and faith. It overrides reason, common sense, decency, and intellect at every turn.

    I’m afraid there may be no cure for faith in many cases and that it will often be fatal to the believer. With that in mind, I have a solution! Mercy killings of the feeble-minded believers who won’t give up their belief in an imaginary friend!

    They *should* be happy about it – I mean, getting to be with their “God” all the sooner.

    ::grin::

    Megan | Jun 28, 2009 | Reply

  30. “No, these cases aren’t of extremists, they of mainstream thought. Your cases of religious folk that are practical and intelligent are the extremists. ”
    Soo…. I actually AM an extremist? That’s odd, as, in terms of mainstream society, i’m not that extreme… In fact, in terms of mainstream society, i’m pretty mainstream. I suppose i may be extreme in terms of religion, but that’s not what the phrase “religious extremist” means…

    “why are the beliefs of religious moderates any more respectable than those of religious extremists? They’re still just as irrational and just as fact-free”
    Just as much as there is no proof FOR a god or religion, there is no proof AGAINST it. Therefore, people like me who accept the fact that there very well could be a god, but that it’s just as likely not, are more accepting and rational than you :)

    And i’d just like to say that i’m not an atheist, but each and every one of these appalls me as much as it would you. Who the hell prays for an ill child when they simply need a hospital and medicine? I mean, i can even think of a religious-based reason to convince these extremists… But i wasn’t there, and i’m astonished at the lack of compassion and care from these parents…

    Oh, and, finally, eye_snap, i’m neither atheist nor prejudiced against atheism. I respect atheists, and probably have a tendency to lean towards atheism, but at the time-being i defy your last statement :)

    Joe | Jun 28, 2009 | Reply

  31. “Just as much as there is no proof FOR a god or religion, there is no proof AGAINST it”

    There is also no proof against there being an invisible pink unicorn that likes pizza (may her hooves never be shod) that goes around behind me poking my bum with her horn… but if **I** got up and said that in public I’d be put away in a mental institution!!

    These idiots who essentially say there is a big “GOD” who watches everything and makes stuff happen, are the exact same, but can run around freely teaching their nonsense to children when they are at their most vulnerable and believing.

    Yeah there is a difference.

    EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE PROOF

    Megan | Jun 28, 2009 | Reply

  32. Small minds condemn that which they do not understand.

    D-Girl | Jun 28, 2009 | Reply

  33. @D-Girl
    And rude ones insult people by calling them small-minded
    @Megan
    There is, as of yet, no method of proving string theory or the multiverse theory that comes from it. There may never be. However, it’s accepted by many scientists as a vaguely feasible theory. This extraordinary claim, afaik, have no proof. (Incidentally, i’m pretty into all this quantum physics, i kinda know my stuff here). So why not let us be with our mildly feasible theory?

    Joe | Jun 28, 2009 | Reply

  34. Are there atheist extremists? Yes. Are there stupid atheists? I’ll bet there are. Are atheists constantly warring, killing, molesting and raping in the name of atheism?

    No. This is the basic, fundamental difference. If you don’t get it, you should get out of the conversation.

    GMac | Jun 28, 2009 | Reply

  35. I find it very hard to concieve how “extreme” atheism could lead to violence. I certainly know of no examples.
    By playing “devil’s advocate” you are merely making excuses for the religious.

    Alan McClean | Jun 28, 2009 | Reply

  36. D-Girl, It looks like you’re saying those who do not believe in god are small minded. If that is the case, I wish only to ask you one question.

    how is it small minded to question old stories and turn to things that can be proven over things that have no proof, such as religions that have not been around for the majority of human existence.

    WWM | Jun 28, 2009 | Reply

  37. GMac, I must applaud you. Very well put

    WWM | Jun 28, 2009 | Reply

  38. Why is it more disgusting when it happens in Maryland, than when it happens in India? It’s ridiculous no matter where you’re from.

    Chris | Jun 28, 2009 | Reply

  39. I can’t read this. It’s the lowest contrast web page I’ve ever seen, not counting the one with white text with a white background.
    I’m using Safari on a Mac.

    For shame!

    Nate Lockwood | Jun 28, 2009 | Reply

  40. I can’t read this. It’s the lowest contrast web page I’ve ever seen, not counting the one with white text with a white background.
    I’m using Safari on a Mac.

    For shame!

    Whoops – after about a minute the page renedered correctly. My apologies.

    Nate Lockwood | Jun 28, 2009 | Reply

  41. @Joe: Perhaps because no one is trying to pass discriminatory laws based on string theory? No one kills or tortures in the name of string theory. No one goes to war in order to force other people to believe in string theory. And if evidence points to the likelihood that string theory is wrong, string theory adherents will accept that and find a better theory that fits the observable facts.

    Heidi | Jun 28, 2009 | Reply

  42. I think you are blaming religion in certain cases when the real culprit is mental illness. The religious fervor may be a byproduct of the mental illness.

    Thaddeus | Jun 28, 2009 | Reply

  43. Just be glad that these people were not atheists, because I have a feeling that the persons in question would have done this stuff anyway. You can’t help crazy.
    …………………..

    Carl Sagan once said, “Take that bible and shove it into the cosmos… up you’re ass.

    Matt | Jun 28, 2009 | Reply

  44. yep, they caused it. Their marriage has ruined all marriage in Minnesota. I’m sure of it.

    Debbie | Jun 28, 2009 | Reply

  45. Hmmmmm….. Let’s see now; we’re talking about a religon where people believe that the entire universe and everything in it was whipped up in 6 days by an immortal, super-powered extraterrestrial being who is the only one of his kind and has existed forever. Futhermore, this being recently got himself born as a man, died and then came back to life in order to save everyone on earth from the hell that he created. He can read the minds of all 6 billion members of the world’s population all the time and always knows what is going to happen because he MAKES it happen. Even so, he still allows us (his children whom he loves) to be cast into a lake of fire for all eternity if we say we don’t believe he’s real.

    Can someone please clarify why anyone believing this stuff should NOT be classified as mentaly ill?

    Chris | Jun 28, 2009 | Reply

  46. @Megan: I don’t believe culling of those with strong beliefs is necessarily the best way to go. After all, I also know some Christians who are kind-hearted, gentle people — not self-righteous bigots. (Granted, there are more of the latter running around)

    I agree whole-heartedly with you, RE: unicorns. There is absolutely nothing different between the belief in extraterrestrial, omnipotent unicorns, and the belief in God. One is more generally accepted by society, because it is the way it has been for most of human history. That is all. It is tradition to believe in the Holy Trinity. It is not yet tradition to believe in unicorns, or the Spaghetti Monster.

    @Thaddeus, Matt: But that is precisely the point. Had they had any excuse other than “My God told me to do it”, they’d be locked away. As is, they escape punishment — because our society refuses to punish religious extremists.

    @Debbie: I’d like to know why an all-loving God would punish an entire planet for two people’s happiness.

    @Chris: Because it is tradition. It’s the way it was for misogynistic rituals like chastity balls, debutantes, and giving the bride away at a wedding. Until the religious many concede that there are certain aspects of their religions which simply do not apply to modern life, we shall have extremists continuing to kill in the name of God, and getting away with it to boot.

    blufindr | Jun 28, 2009 | Reply

  47. an atheist invented the nuclear bomb, killing millions of people. would i dare say “if that man knew the love of God he wouldn’t have made such a weapon of death?” no, that would be stupid, ignorant, and intolerant like this list. shame on the idiot who wrote this, taking extremist stories and trying to paint them as a religious norm. if the whole world were atheist, maybe we’d all be as dishonest and underhanded towards each other as you have been here. no, i am not religious, i am simply honest. try it some time

    janzie | Jun 28, 2009 | Reply

  48. @janzie: Pray tell, which “inventor” did you have in mind: Oppenheimer, Fermi, Einstein, or Rutherford?

    Rather, the history of religion-based cruelty is long and bloody, compared to the list of atheism-based cruelty.

    Belief in imaginary friends is discouraged in children, why not so in adults? Why are adults encouraged to get together in groups to discuss the supposed power of this “God”, for whom there is no definitive proof?

    Nowhere in this article did the author state that this was the norm. He simply said that these were things that atheists did not do.

    In addition, your implication that atheists are unprincipled is “ignorant”, “intolerant”, and “stupid”, at the very least. We do not lack morality. We simply do not feel the need to justify good behaviour with a book written by sheep-herders, about a supremely powerful being who’s never bothered to show his face to us.

    Come back when you have evidence of atheists performing similar evils, and perhaps then you’ll be taken seriously.

    blufindr | Jun 28, 2009 | Reply

  49. Janzie, in America atheists make up about 15% of the population, yet only .2% of the prison population. What does that say about our morality?

    BTW, Office Max is having a sale on capital letters this week. You might want to pick up a few boxes. And pick up a history book while you’re at it. As Blufindr correctly noted, the A-Bomb was designed by a *team* of scientists. A rather large team, all working on different aspects of the problem.

    Dave Hitt | Jun 29, 2009 | Reply

  50. Rather, the history of religion-based cruelty is long and bloody, compared to the list of atheism-based cruelty.

    I feel the need to clarify (for the religion-minded, not for the poster who wrote that) that there is no such thing as ‘atheism-based cruelty.’ When an atheist does something, it’s not in the name of disbelief. The only thing atheism-based is atheism.

    As opposed to people who fly planes into buildings, or blow each other up in Northern Ireland.

    Heidi | Jun 29, 2009 | Reply

  51. i am implying that the writer of this list is unprincipled. i would never group the whole lot of you into one moral-less whole, as the writer of this list has done to everyone who believes in a higher power. that is unprincipled.

    people, since the beginning of time, have been doing horrible things to each other regardless of religion. Lenin and Stalin killed countless people in the name of communism and atheism, but does that make the concept bad? no, they were evil men. get off your high horses and realize that.

    in my opinion, God is not imaginary, i just can’t prove he exists scientifically. nor are you able to prove he doesn’t exist. being derogatory towards religion just makes you look like stuck up assholes rather then supporting your opinions. being taken seriously by you isn’t much to hope for… but that’s my defence

    janzie | Jun 29, 2009 | Reply

  52. @Heidi: Yeah, thanks for that clarification. I just wanted to tap out a fast reply on my way out the door.

    @janzei:

    if the whole world were atheist, maybe we’d all be as dishonest and underhanded towards each other as you have been here. no, i am not religious, i am simply honest. try it some time

    No, you weren’t lumping us together at all. ::rolls my eyes::

    People may have been doing horrible things to each other, but it seems that it is the religion-based conflicts which are considered socially acceptable. Up until the last 100 years or so, at least. Until now, it was the atheists who had been (and still are) demonized, while theists are pretty much free to do as they please.

    The burden of proof is on the people who claim existence. You claim God exists. So prove to me God exists. I do not claim God exists (actually, I couldn’t give a rat’s as to God’s [non-]existence), so I don’t have to prove anything to you.

    Deriding religion is insulting to you?

    Well, as an atheist GLBT ally and a bisexual teenager, I laugh in your face. My kind have been prosecuted for hundreds of years. Yours, not so. Your kind have been in power for as long as mine have been shunned, tortured, and killed. So before saying anything about how this is insulting to you, consider us and what yours have done to ours.

    blufindr | Jun 29, 2009 | Reply

  53. @janzie You know what? I keep hearing this bit about Lenin and Stalin being atheists, as if it were a known fact. And yet a Google search tells me “maybe, probably, not sure, complex relationship with religion…” Do you have a reliable, verifiable source for this claim, or are you taking it on faith?

    Regardless of their belief system, though, they did NOT do anything “in the name of” atheism. That assertion is flat out wrong. Marxism, communism, sure. But atheism doesn’t have rules other than “I don’t see any reason to believe in gods.” You really can’t do anything “in the name of” that concept. It’s nonsensical.

    As for proof, can you prove Santa Claus doesn’t exist? Or Zeus? Or Thor? Do you believe that they do exist?

    Heidi | Jun 29, 2009 | Reply

  54. On that note: janzie, you are an atheist, too. Our atheism just extends to one more God than yours.

    blufindr | Jun 29, 2009 | Reply

  55. well done religion, you’ve once again shown us the errors of our ways

    Anonymous | Jun 29, 2009 | Reply

  56. Interesting facts but terribly written. You sound like a child.

    Tim | Jun 29, 2009 | Reply

  57. I can’t understand why anyone would think that this is somehow intolerant of the religulous. Come on, they did these stupid things. There is not only nothing wrong with pointing out their stupidity it needs to be pointed out.

    Dave | Jun 29, 2009 | Reply

  58. @Tim: Let me introduce to you the argument many of my theist (ex-)friends have presented me:

    Them: God exists.
    Me: Where is your proof?
    Them: It’s in the Bible.
    Me: Okay. What makes you think the Bible is completely factual.
    Them: It’s the Word of God. Of course it’s completely factual.
    Me: ::points out a bunch of logical inconsistencies::
    Them: It’s too bad you don’t see the light. See you in hell, sinner.

    Now, you tell me that doesn’t sound childish to you, I’ll introduce you to my 4-year-old niece who constructs better arguments than that on a regular basis.

    blufindr | Jun 29, 2009 | Reply

  59. It’s true that there are intelligent and practical people who believe in one religion or another. However religion itself never did any good to humanity. You’d think in 2,000 years that it exists, Christianity would have saved our souls already? All religions do is create pointless, yes absolutely POINTLESS conflict.

    It’s like saying “My imaginary friend is real while yours is fake! DIE INFIDEL!”.

    Oh, and if you’re grown up and don’t have an imaginary friend, those who do have one view you as the worst kind of person (probably they feel threatened by your logic and intelligence).

    Andrew | Jun 29, 2009 | Reply

  60. @Andrew: I don’t think it’s religion itself that’s to blame, though. I mean, aside from the fact that it inherently encourages believers to absorb “facts” that hold no logic whatsoever, it’s innocuous enough. The trouble lies with the fundamentalists who use it as an excuse to do whatever.

    blufindr | Jun 29, 2009 | Reply

  61. I was attending 12-step meetings and just plain got sick and tired of the “higher power” will save you crap. That all you need to stay clean and sober is to pray and put yourself into God’s hands.
    Well, I went a different route and just plain made up my mind that I didn’t want to be a stoned-out freak anymore. It’s been 3.5 years and counting.
    It can be done with willpower and perseverance.
    No wonder the 12 step outfits have poor success over the long run. Of the 15 people I went to recovery classes with only myself and one other are still making it work for us. He doesn’t go to 12-step meetings either. LOL

    Richard N | Jun 29, 2009 | Reply

  62. Clearly, these people are idiots with our without religion. There are plenty of those that are quite successful at creating mayhem without God to blame. Many on your list would have done something just as stupid as they are cursed with the human condition: stupidity.

    Sandy | Jun 29, 2009 | Reply

  63. If I made a list of crimes committed by atheists, would the lack of spiritual presence be to blame? I think not. There is plenty of stupid to go around.

    Sandy | Jun 29, 2009 | Reply

  64. yes it would have

    anonymous | Jun 29, 2009 | Reply

  65. In my home town a girl was sick and her mother was praying that she would get better. The girl was in diabetic shock and died, all she needed was a shot of insulin.

    Alex | Jun 29, 2009 | Reply

  66. Ahem. Fuck you and the shit you’re doing in the name of atheism. It’s as bad as the hateful indoctrination that’s done in the name of god. That’s all I have to say, and anybody who understands it isn’t going to be invested in following a line of argumentation on it, which is why I didn’t even bother reading this comment roll, I’m just so disgusted by the fact that this article even exists. I’m an atheist, and I’m /so/ above dogging on theists for stuff done by /bad people./

    buzgun | Jun 29, 2009 | Reply

  67. Ugh. I knew I shouldn’t have started reading, but I saw someone mention their bisexuality in defense of this bullshit. I’m also bisexual, and I care about my rights; in fact I actually fight for them, unlike so many of you barcalounger queers. Do not, -do not- use your sexuality to back up your prejudice, twat. Do what I do: direct hatred towards people for actually thinking and saying idiotic, basely offensive crap.

    buzgun | Jun 29, 2009 | Reply

  68. It’s kind of annoying how us atheists act like we’re so intellectually superior to religious people, even though there are smart people in religions just like there are idiot atheists.

    There will always be some insane morons in every group that will give the group itself a bad name.

    Evergreen | Jun 29, 2009 | Reply

  69. To repeat myself (for no reason other than to make myself feel better, since none of you self-righteous types will read it)

    NO ONE DOES ANYTHING IN THE NAME OF ATHEISM.

    I dare any of you to point out a single incidence of someone who lit their child on fire, starved their child or withheld life-saving medicine because healthcare was against their non-belief. Go ahead; I’ll wait for you to try Googling for one. Oh, look. You can’t. Because IT DOESN’T HAPPEN.

    The cases above cite actions that were taken specifically *because* of these people’s beliefs. They are not included here just because the perpetrators *happened* to be believers. These things were done because of their religious beliefs, and for no other reason.

    I just don’t see how you people don’t get the difference.

    Heidi | Jun 29, 2009 | Reply

  70. I’m just so disgusted by the fact that this article even exists.

    I hope you realize that most of the people disgusted that bi-sexuals like you exist get that hatred from their religon.

    I’m an atheist, and I’m /so/ above dogging on theists for stuff done by /bad people./

    Thanks for informing us that you’re soooo superior to us. Much appreciated.

    Do what I do: direct hatred towards people for actually thinking and saying idiotic, basely offensive crap.

    So you don’t dog people for doing bad things, but direct hatred towards those who think and say bad things? I think you’ve got that backwards.

    Dave Hitt | Jun 29, 2009 | Reply

  71. There is this theory that religion is an evolutionary tool that helped keep together societies in the making (and law abiding, easier with the threat of eternal damnation than faulty law enforcement). But its usefulness is gone, they linger like unused tissue and limbs.
    We need to speed the rate of removal of this abominations and complete our growth process.

    Diego | Jun 29, 2009 | Reply

  72. “As Blufindr correctly noted, the A-Bomb was designed by a *team* of scientists.”

    And several other scientists noted the possibility of creating a fission bomb.

    Nate Lockwood | Jun 29, 2009 | Reply

  73. I prefer ‘THERE IS NO GOD. GET OVER IT!’

    Phil E. Drifter | Jun 29, 2009 | Reply

  74. Richard N | Jun 29, 2009

    “Clearly, these people are idiots with ***our*** without religion.”

    psst buddy you forgot to spellcheck

    Phil E. Drifter | Jun 29, 2009 | Reply

  75. Um, I’m an atheist, but of all you who are saying these aren’t the cases of extremists, are dipshits. Of course they are fucking extremists! They are killing/torturing/hurting people because of religion, and that sounds pretty extremist to me. You don’t see the average Christian or Jew going down the street with a AK47 shooting it at anybody who doesn’t believe what they say.

    Cara | Jun 29, 2009 | Reply

  76. Excellent post dude!

    hey – checkout: http://www.thinkersplayground.com/public/articles/10-dude-where-s-my-soul

    Gavin | Jun 29, 2009 | Reply

  77. These people would have done this (or something like this) regardless of religion. Religion doesn’t make people crazy. Could these religions have created the target for their crazy hate, perhaps. Like those rapists and murderers who “find god” in prison, they are not any different before or after.

    Common Sense | Jun 29, 2009 | Reply

  78. A huge reply today. Sorry, guys. Just do a quicksearch for your name. If you’ve posted recently, I’ve probably replied to you.

    @Richard N: I suffer from bouts of depression and mania (similar to those experienced by those with manic-depressive disorders). A Christian friend of mine, who knows I am for the most part anti-religion, spent the better part of an evening trying to lecture me about how “[his] God was everyone’s God [...] and he saves.”

    I acknowledge that for some people, the idea that God may be backing them up is useful in giving them the motivation they need to get their lives back together. But in that case, why not cut out the middle-man? Why not take full responsibility for their own actions, acknowledge that it was their work and their work alone that got them out of their rut, even if God “inspired” them to do so?

    @Sandy: The point is not that these people are stupid. The point, as Heidi pointed out, is that these people acted as their religion told them to act. No atheist shall ever commit such crimes based on their belief (or apparent lack thereof).

    In addition, any atheist who commits a crime is fully responsible for his or her actions. We, unlike our theist counterparts, do not have a socially-acceptable psychosis.

    @buzgun: I was unaware that Dave had posted this “in the name of atheism”. If you have evidence to the contrary, please, share with the group.

    I am not using my sexuality in defence of my ragging on theists. I am using it to point out that the playing field has been leveled, for once. You tell me a period in history where atheists have enjoyed the same power and privileges as theists have done. Here’s a pro-tip for you: It doesn’t exist. Up until recently, to be socially reputable, one had to be a theist. To freely admit otherwise was to be branded a sinner, a heathen, and various other adjectives I shall keep out of this post for the sake of politeness.

    I was unaware that I was not fighting for my rights. In fact, I was completely unaware that lobbying for a GLBT community support group, appealing to schools to allow students to take same-sex partners to functions, and participating in every march in my region meant I was being a “barcalounger queer”.

    As for “direct[ing my] hatred towards people for actually thinking and saying idiotic, basely offensive crap.” Did you actually read Dave’s article? Or did you just see the title and begin a debate with little information? I am most certainly not going to allow ignorant, fundamentalist torturers and murders to get away with such behaviour. If I performed these same actions, I would be branded a loony. Why not so for these people? Oh, wait, that’s right. Religion is a socially- and historically-cultivated norm. This makes it that little bit easier for these people to do whatever they like, and be guaranteed support from people within their religion. Simply directing my anger towards the idiots who are all talk, is not going to save any children against being vicariously murdered.

    @Evergreen: Your point is absolutely valid. However, the issue is not the inherent idiocy of people in either camp. Here, at least, the issue is that theism allows much more extreme behaviour, in a setting which makes it at least somewhat morally acceptable by others of the same religion.

    @Dave: A great many Christians (I take Christians as an example, since I don’t know much of Islam or other major religions and I’d rather not make myself look like any more of a “twat”) are unaware that they are forbidden, by religion, from: consuming shellfish, wearing gold, wearing pearls, allowing women to speak up, consuming blood (the blood in meat is not exempt), working on the Sabbath, consuming pork (or even touching a dead pig), wearing clothing of mixed cloth, or cross-planting (among other things).

    These same Christians are also usually unaware that premarital sex, worshipping idols (an aside: Is a statue of the Virgin Mary now no longer considered an idol?), blasphemy, trying to convert people to another religion (!!) striking/cursing your parents, murder, and perjury are punishable by death in the Old Testament.

    (Interestingly, so is incest. And yet, it is considered acceptable, at least at the very start. Glenn Miller has written an article addressing this, which can be found here.)

    However, the aforementioned Christians can, with confidence, spout off quotation after quotation from the Bible that frowns upon homosexuality. This leads me to believe that again, religion serves as an acceptable scapegoat for deep-seated homophobia.

    @Diego: I disagree. I’ve been a long-term believer that religion is nothing more than an adult’s bed-time story, and its primary role is to try to inject some semblance of meaning into our lives. So really, from the start, it’s had very little use for anything else.

    I do agree that we should be encouraging its “removal”.

    **Quickly, before someone (else) rags on me for bagging their belief in a preternatural faerie.**
    Disclaimer: There is a profound difference between “religious” and “spiritual”. I take no issue with someone believing in a higher power, or being close to the earth or anything like that (unless they’re like those vegan parents who killed their baby, trying to keep her on a vegan diet). It is organised religion, with set rules of “my imaginary friend told me this, and thus it must be true”, and extremists of such catechisms, that I feel the most antagonistic about.

    @Phil E. Drifter: Spell-check wouldn’t have caught that. No spell-check is good enough to catch misuse of words — yet.

    @Common Sense: [::chuckles:: Sorry. The address line in this strikes me as profoundly funny]
    I don’t believe this is necessarily the case. Religion fuels the hatred, and makes it quasi-acceptable for people to do this without needing to atone for their actions. Furthermore, if your hypothesis held true, there’d be a great number more atheists running around doing these same things. ::looks around:: I don’t see any. Do you?

    I’m thinking it’s more the case that religion makes it at least semi-possible for them to act out, and be misogynistic, lupine, abusive, fallacious, homophobic, and otherwise generally neurotic, without being much affected by the social purgatory which is inflicted upon those who perform the same acts without religious excuses.

    blufindr | Jun 29, 2009 | Reply

  79. I’m thinking it’s more the case that religion makes it at least semi-possible for them to act out, and be misogynistic, lupine, abusive, fallacious, homophobic, and otherwise generally neurotic, without being much affected by the social purgatory which is inflicted upon those who perform the same acts without religious excuses.

    This is exactly it. When Daniel Hauser’s mother ran away with him after the judge ordered chemo, fundies I know were horrified that a judge could force them to not let their son die. Think about that. I got a Tweet about it that said it was an infringement on family rights, and that it was up to the mother whether their child should have treatment. (i.e. it’s ok to let this little boy die, because his mothers’ religion says he can be cured with some herbs and some woo.) But oh, look. He’s back, getting chemo, and the tumor is shrinking, even though it was not responding at all to the woo.

    Heidi | Jun 29, 2009 | Reply

  80. Oh, but my point there was that religious doctrine basically gives you a get out of jail free card. Fortunately that’s changing now.

    Heidi | Jun 29, 2009 | Reply

  81. THINGS ATHEISTS DIDN’T (DON’T) DO:

    Blow up the World Trade Center.

    Kill millions of people for an imaginary friend.

    Brainwash people all over the world to believe in a religion for economical reasons.

    Blindly follow the words of sheep herders thousands of years ago.

    Rambo | Jun 29, 2009 | Reply

  82. No offense, but this made absolutely no sense. Your grammar is horrid and your points aren’t logical.
    Are you 13?

    Female | Jun 29, 2009 | Reply

  83. @blufindr: Wow. Get a life. I bet you’re overweight.

    Female | Jun 29, 2009 | Reply

  84. This is groundlessly inflammatory, and you should all be ashamed of wasting time and energy here.

    What You Guys Didn’t Do:

    Read a book.

    Help those who need.

    Pick up trash around your neighborhood.

    Further your education.

    There’s a myriad of things you should be doing instead of making sweeping generalizations and ad hominem statements. Give some a spin, you just might enjoy it.

    Taylor | Jun 29, 2009 | Reply

  85. @Female: I bet you’re fatter, cutie ;D

    Kenny | Jun 29, 2009 | Reply

  86. @Female: Actually, I’m underweight. And I’m this way because I’ve been basically starving myself for 6 months, from stress and dysmorphia. My boyfriend only just managed to convince me that I’m fine, with a BMI of just over 20.

    But thanks. Good to know you can make such baseless and cruel comments. I’m going to continue starving myself, thanks. And you can be the one to explain to him when I end up in hospital for malnutrition. Hell, I mean, I’m already experiencing hypotension from that. But whatever. That’s irrelevant, as long as I’m overweight, right?

    @Taylor: And your comment is not at all “groundlessly inflammatory”. I read on a regular basis, volunteer at various charities, participate in Clean Up Australia days, plant trees, cut down my personal carbon emissions and persuade others to do the same.

    Dave did not make any “sweeping generalizations”, besides from commenting that these actions (all performed by theists), are not actions that atheists are known to do.

    There’s a myriad of things you can do, instead of accusing us of being ignorant and unprincipled. Bust open a history book sometime, and note just how many events of wanton cruelty have been caused by atheists. Oh wait. There are none.

    I’m not saying that atheists do not commit atrocious crimes. I’m saying that theists typically have a “get out of jail free card”, as Heidi previously put it, simply because they are deluded enough to believe in an all-powerful imaginary friend.

    So, you know. “Smartenize” yourself, or stay the hell out of these debates.

    blufindr | Jun 29, 2009 | Reply

  87. What You Guys Didn’t Do:

    Read a book.

    Actually, I just finished Sam Harris’s The End of Faith, Christopher Hitchens’s god is not Great, and I’m halfway through Origin of Species. Oh, and earlier this month I read a book about TMJ treatment, and another about the treatment of musculoskeletal pain. (This was all during June.) And you?

    @blufinder: You’re fine. Listen to your BF. He is right. 20 BMI is great! You don’t want to go much below that, or you’ll start *really* feeling the health issues. Seriously. Try to look at photos of other people with your BMI. They’re fine, too. Don’t listen to some hag who doesn’t know you, and who is too much of a coward to even make up a fake name for posting. “Female.” Very creative. *pfft*

    And check it out:

    “For adults, an ideal BMI is between 18.5 and 24.9. A person with a BMI over 24.9 is considered overweight, and a person with a BMI under 18.5 is considered underweight.”

    http://bmi.emedtv.com/bmi/ideal-bmi.html

    You’re not only fine, you’re just about perfect! Go ahead and ask your BF if you don’t believe me. ;-)

    Heidi | Jun 29, 2009 | Reply

  88. @Heidi: Hah! I’m quite sure Brian will agree with you whole-heartedly. And probably berate the life out of that poster, while he’s at it. He’s good like that. ;)

    Thank you. I’ve been having a hell of a day, and this just kinda was the straw that broke the camel’s back, you know?

    blufindr | Jun 29, 2009 | Reply

  89. Welcome. :-) Hang in there and don’t beat yourself up, ok?

    Heidi | Jun 29, 2009 | Reply

  90. @Heidi: Shall try. Brian would probably go nuts if I did anything less, anyway. He’s a keeper, this one. Hah.

    blufindr | Jun 29, 2009 | Reply

  91. OK, I was brought up in a Christian house. Officially, I’m a Muslim. In reality, an Athiest. Had to “convert/revert” to marry my lovely wife. So yes, I’m a hypocrit. But so are the people that said that it was the only way I could be with her & don’t mind that I still eat pork, drink beer & have never seen the inside of a Mosque.
    Religions are passing myths.
    Roman & Greek MYTHOLOGY, as we call it now, were once religions. Christianity is based on numerous former religions (paganism etc). December 25th – pagan. Easter – pagan. The saviour rising from the dead after 3 days – pagan. The list could go on.

    Even if religious people evolved & develop the ability to think for themselves, Christianity, Islam etc may all fall. But they’ll be replaced by new BS.

    Stuffed | Jun 30, 2009 | Reply

  92. Or religion may be the result of mental insecurity.
    “Religion is a crutch for those who don’t have drugs” – a friend of mine wore that T-shirt…. to church (forced to go by overbearing parents)

    Stuffed | Jun 30, 2009 | Reply

  93. Blufindr: I agree that for most theists using their ‘religion’ as a crutch for drug/alcohol recovery does work- for a while. What generally seems to happen when one interviews a theist after a relapse is that they will pull something out of the ‘excuse’ bag- such as- “it’s OK because I’m forgiven”… or something to that effect. It seems difficult for them to have long term success because they always have an “out”. “I’m weak and the devil got to me” is another favorite.
    If one is to take recovery seriously (for life) you need to put yourself into your own hands, not some invisible friend- who always has an “escape clause”.
    Say Howdy Blu, I am also a recovering mental health case- severe depression and schizo. And of course drug abuse (self medicating- LOL). I happily take an antidepressant that has worked for me for 3.5 years. It’s not been easy, but very worthwhile…Rick

    Richard N | Jun 30, 2009 | Reply

  94. @Stuffed: Be that as it may be, one cannot deny that unspeakable horrors have been committed in the name of religion. I wasn’t going to bring ancient religions into it, but now that you’ve brought up that point, I feel it necessary to point out that atheists have never sacrificed any living being (animal or no) to appease our imaginary friend.

    Your statement about religion being a “crutch” is another one that is all too true. The point is not that religious people commit atrocious deeds.1 The point is that these acts are performed in the name of religion, in a manner which makes them at least somewhat acceptable.

    In an atheist society, one who kills a woman to “defend family honour” would be punished fittingly. In our theist society, such a one may be lauded, maybe even beatified. This is where the uneven power play between religion and lack thereof comes in to things. We are on an uneven footing, because we do not have the same freedom as our deluded comrades, to do whatever and pin the blame on our systems of belief.

    1: This is not a sweeping statement about all theists. This is in support of the above article, that horrible things are done and some of them are committed by theists.

    @Richard N: Hah, oh, how I agree with you. I was briefly institutionalised last year in a Christian mental facility. If I hear “God will save you if you only let him help” one more time, I think I’ll scream. If I am to get better, it will be through my own will. Not that of a preternatural faerie, who I’m sure has better matters to attend to anyway.

    Because of my current home situation, I am unable to be prescribed any anti-depressants. However, I, too, self-medicate. I am perfectly aware that I am a flawed, bitter being. I don’t see how further deluding myself with belief in an incorporeal, invisible, and yet omnipotent being. The responsibility for recovery rests primarily on me.

    blufindr | Jun 30, 2009 | Reply

  95. Good morning,

    I’ve been reading the collective conciousness of the preceding posts for a little while now and trying to find the most appropriate way to put this.

    Apparently one thing atheism did quite well was give alot of people of very heady sense of smug self satisfaction that they have finally broken free of the addled masses of the faithful. They are the true enlightened ones in that they have left their beliefs in god(s) and organized religion behind them and moved forward in rationality and obstinacy.

    The faithful all the while mired in their ignorance and inscience. Unable to comprehend the truth of it in that belief in a flying spaghetti monster is no more sane or appropriate than believing Elvis is still alive and doing 3 shows a week in Vegas.

    In all honesty i’ve noticed one thing very prevalent in many many of these comments. Those who made them know who they are, and those who’ve read them know what I mean. Belief or otherwise flaming someone for whatever reason at its basic level is not conducive to constructive conversation so in doing so you’re merely doing your very best Nancy Grace impersonation. The last thing she got to the bottle of was a bottle of #8 peroxide bleach, am i right? No I jest, she is needlessly inflamatory but in truth that gets the job done for her. It gets her ratings. It keeps her paid. And it really solves nothing when you get right down to it so lets all just put the sticks down and have a constructive conversation.

    All of the examples given in the list are valid don’t get me wrong they made be simple ad hoc examples of things believe have done using religion as a reason or an excuse but the comments attached to them are no less inflamatory than many made here. Are no more conducive to a proper education of our young then telling them its all right to pick on the one kid in class who wears a cross because he’s obviously in need of a good beating.

    Religion doesn’t just give people an excuse to do things it also gives those in full control of their mental and physical faculties hope, comfort, joy, religion is many things to many people. To more people than not religion brings a positivity that these people cannot find elsewhere.

    Being an atheist, lacking belief or spirituatlity. (Yes i realize atheism is dictionarily defined as lack of belief in “(G)god(s)”) In this meager authors humble opinion is the same as using your religion as an excuse for murder, genocide, rape, mistrust of preventative/curative medicines, etc. is fruitless and ill-advised at the very very least.
    Lack of faith or lack of spirituality and railing against such spirituality in the name of the flesh and in the name of the tangible is again in my opinion tantamount to forsaking the quest for knowledge and self-discovery.

    Someone said the burden of proof is on the religious to prove god doesn’t exist. Proving something doesn’t exist is hard or impossible. Proving that someones beliefs are valid is no more easy than proving that they don’t.
    If someone talks to god because they believe he can hear them is no more/less comforting than talking to their plants or to their pets. Sure the plants are phyically there, and their pet might just be in their lap making the conversation less outwardly awkward but it is no more or less comforting to the individual. And is that any more or less than just simply positive.

    Nobody has the technology, the time, or the funding to look under every and any rock in the universe. Proof of concept for faith may be out their be we just can’t find it. The burden of proof is on both groups my friends, and i propose a race. Whoever finds what they believe in first wins a double-dose of smug self satisfaction and the right to say “nya nya, i was right” for eternity.

    I’m going to rap it up here. As i’ve droned on long enough.

    Am i religious. Not exactly. I was raised catholic but i do not believe in an all powerful being in control of my life. Thats just what i believe. Why i believe that i honestly don’t know.

    The bible, the Qur’an, the Talmud, the Torah, the Epic of Gilgamish, the Pantheon.

    The are each allegorical to one another and in fact may all be the same religion in the end.

    The truest, nay the ONLY true and honest statement in any of those great works is this. When their respective gods were asks to prove themselves, they replied merely by stating that “I am”.

    “I am”, “you are”, we all are simply that. We simply are. No more or less than god or a fantastic friend that some people may and or many not have (un)necessarily deified. We all just are we will continue to be for a long long time.

    Don’t “pick a religion” it’s not a colour wheel. Choose your faith like you’d choose a wife/husband/life partner. It is a special and personal choice, its a journey that everyone will take one day. You’ve all taken the first steps to understand yourselves and turned away from captiol G organized religion. But don’t turn your back on the organism that stands before you in the mirror. You are. You have flesh and blood and knowledge and ablility and you also have a spirit. Not a holy-wear-a-halo-and sing hymns spirit but a honest wholesome part of yourself that makes you quintesentially you. It goes beyond the real and the tangible. Its what connects you to the universe. Don’t give up your quest for understanding simply because you think the faithful are insane. Just understand yourself better to know what to put your faith in.

    God does exist my friends. Go check the bathroom… right above the sink. I’ll wait. :)

    Solifluction | Jun 30, 2009 | Reply

  96. I promise next time i’ll run a spell check. :)

    Solifluction | Jun 30, 2009 | Reply

  97. You know, I was originally going to respond to “Solifluction” with a point-by-point reply and quotes. But I’ve changed my mind. I’m going to sum it up, instead.

    1. I can’t even believe you compared atheism to violent crime. Raise your hand if you’ve committed genocide. Oh, look! No one here!

    2. I find it pretty amusing that you’re bitching about a “very heady sense of smug self satisfaction” in a condescending, and offensive I-know-better-than-you-do-my-children post. Ah, the irony.

    3. What on earth makes you think that we are all on our “first steps?” I’ve been an atheist for 20 years. Thought about it already, argued about it with my parents long ago, and I’m very clear in what I believe. And I don’t believe in the supernatural. I have never seen anything that would remotely suggest to me that I should. I’m not going to revise my position without some evidence. And I’m no more likely to waste my time looking for evidence of gods than I am to go looking for evidence of Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

    Heidi | Jun 30, 2009 | Reply

  98. haha my brother, Catholic, just condemned me as a demon for even being on this site. he said that it is a biased representation of religious sects and that I should read the bible

    Dan | Jun 30, 2009 | Reply

  99. So my little site can cause readers to become demonized? Cool! Ah, the power, the power…

    Dave Hitt | Jun 30, 2009 | Reply

  100. Tl;dr

    Rambo | Jun 30, 2009 | Reply

  101. Weight pwned.

    Rambo | Jun 30, 2009 | Reply

  102. Solifluction:

    I was doing fine until I reached the end. I’m not God, even unto myself. I’m just silly old me. Sometimes a fool and a pirate and sometimes a really wonderful human being. I think the best way to explain it is that I’m non-spiritual. When I am out in nature, at- oh let’s say- Grant’s Grove (western slope of Sierras in California) and I am looking up at the largest living tree on earth, sure I feel something. But it’s a feeling of kinship with a fantastic creation of DNA doing it’s thing. It’s nothing in the area of- “ooooo wow, I feel vibes”. Nada. Just a beautiful big-ass tree. I don’t mix up being amazed with any distortion that some ‘god’ made it. Nope… just evolution at it’s best. That General Sherman tree is closer to being a ‘god’ than I ever will.

    I don’t overly “go after” theists. It’s an ugly game to play. I do, however draw a line when folks try to pound me with bull**** about how wonderful Jesus has made their life. Well… GOOD FOR THEM ! If it works for you, hey- go for it. Just leave me alone and we’ll get along fine.

    I do NOT care for fundamentalists and will burn them where ever I see them. They are the root cause of almost every painful lose of humanity. War, fear, mind control, slavery… it’s a long list. If not for fundamentalists we wouldn’t of had a “dark ages” in Europe- of almost total lack of advance in any area of science or medicine. We’d have colonies on Mars by now.

    OK, I’m not going to ignite. I can go on for hours.

    Bottom line- I really don’t give a hoot what someone believes so long as they are not controlling me, my thoughts, my happiness, or my government.
    woof

    Richard N | Jun 30, 2009 | Reply

  103. @Solifluction:

    “Religion doesn’t just give people an excuse to do things it also gives those in full control of their mental and physical faculties hope, comfort, joy, religion is many things to many people. To more people than not religion brings a positivity that these people cannot find elsewhere.”

    You, sir/madam, miss the point completely. The point is not that religion isn’t a good idea, it’s that it can so easily lead to violence, which is committed in a manner which means the offender is not liable to be punished with the full extent of the law. Had any atheist committed any of the crimes listed way above, they would be clapped in irons and set to rot in jail for the rest of their lives. This is not necessarily true for the above culprits. Why? Because society has, on some level, deemed it acceptable for them to behave however, since their religion teaches them to behave that way. I’m not at all denying that atheists, too, have committed atrocious deeds. The difference between us and them? The fact that we can own up to it, and cop the blame. They, however, can satisfy society with “This is what my religion expected of me.”

    “Someone said [...] ‘nya nya, i was right’ for eternity.”

    Again, you miss the point. It is not that they speak to imaginary beings. It is that they perform acts to appease these beings, and society seems to accept this. Less so than previously, true, but the point is that the perpetrators will never face full justice. Why? Because religion is a sociable delusion.

    In our legal system, the burden of proof is on the prosecution — the side that claims existence of blame. Clearly, the idea of “you say it exists, prove it” is logical enough that we use it to prosecute thousands, perhaps millions of criminals every year. Why is God exempt from this method of investigation?

    The “concept of faith” is readily available. Walk into a church, and ta-da. The proof of a divine being, in which faith is to be placed, is harder to prove.

    Then again, I’m a nihilist, so this doesn’t really affect me anyway.

    @Heidi: Well said, dear. I’ve been an atheist for… oh, just over 7 years, and am adamant in my belief that there’s de nada out there.

    @Dan: Direct your brother to this site and ask him to explain such contradictions in the “perfect word of God”.

    @Dave: Maybe you can talk to the Adsense people about paying you more money for appropriate ads! After all, you can convince readers to turn away from God (apparently)! There must be a whole world of revenue there!

    @Richard N: I concur. Unfortunately, in a great many parts of the world (most of Western civilisation, actually), Christianity/other organised religions rule supreme. In a sense, they are already “controlling [you], [your] thoughts, [your] happiness, or [your] government.”

    blufindr | Jun 30, 2009 | Reply

  104. You’re missing the point. These are the actions of religious people. Non-believers don’t do any of those things.

    bobby | Jun 30, 2009 | Reply

  105. Obviously…

    bobby | Jun 30, 2009 | Reply

  106. @Solifluction:you write wall posts that are almost unreadable! Also arrogant and patently false! Fie on You.

    proud kuffar | Jun 30, 2009 | Reply

  107. Non-believers kill people for disobeying some god?
    Go blind staring into the sun? Starve their children for not saying amen? Really? What colour is the sky in your world?

    bobby | Jun 30, 2009 | Reply

  108. Joe:

    This article and the comments involved are aimed at Religion – not spiritualism. In the later there is no ‘believing in the possibility of God’; not only are you absolutely required to believe in one – it has to be their God, and there will always be some horrible punishment that transcends human understand that is worse then rape, torture, and burning combined. This theme is taught to children, simply put in a ‘nicer’ form. I’m an Agnostic Atheist. Even though I respect pure atheist such as Albert Einstein. Lincoln, Mark Twain, and other founding fathers – I tend to find most modern day Atheists a bit dull. Though I generally associate more with them as they’d be less likely to burn me at the stake.

    For those who say violent religious individuals are extremists – your probably confusing ‘Religion’ and ‘Spirituality’. Read the old testament. That’s one sick and barbaric God. One in which I’d rather go to Hell then follow.

    Sam | Jun 30, 2009 | Reply

  109. @blufindr Thanks. And you make some really good points there. Not only do they not accept the blame, but when people harm others in the name of a god, they don’t even understand that what they did was wrong. Which, you know, is basically the definition of what makes one eligible for the insanity defense.

    @bobby
    What colour is the sky in your world?
    Whatever color their god says it is.

    Heidi | Jun 30, 2009 | Reply

  110. Don’t know if any you have seen this, but you really should check it out. It’s a real eye-opener.

    http://www.evilbible.com/

    bobby | Jun 30, 2009 | Reply

  111. @Sam: You are absolutely right. I recall reading an article sometime ago, about Nate Phelps. When trying to teach his children about God, the uncensored way, his youngest son burst into tears and told his father he didn’t want to go to hell. (not original article, but close enough)

    You may also find this article interesting.

    @Heidi: Hence why my (atheist) friends and I try to spread the idea that religion is an acceptable insanity. Because, you know, it is. Though I suppose it’s a matter of perspective. Many Christians have told me that I’m rather “crazy” and “evil”.

    @bobby: For the sake of readability, please try to refrain from making multiple short posts in quick succession.

    blufindr | Jun 30, 2009 | Reply

  112. I’m a writer, I value brevity. I’m sorry you find my post difficult. I’ll refrain from posting. That should solve the problem.

    bobby | Jun 30, 2009 | Reply

  113. @bobby: Sincere apologies. I’m used to reading long replies, not multiple short ones. Did not mean for you to take that as a sign to stop contributing.

    blufindr | Jun 30, 2009 | Reply

  114. Oh, no offence taken. I’ve been on a lot of these atheist sites and I don’t usually stick around long. We’re all just preaching to choir anyway, so to speak. I do find the grammar and spelling on this one worse than most, though. I like to think of atheists as being better educated than others. :-) As a writer the errors really jump out at me. I spend a lot of time editing.

    bobby | Jun 30, 2009 | Reply

  115. @bobby: Blah, and here I was refraining from emoticon use, and double-spacing and everything. :P

    I don’t think atheists are better educated. I think a lot of us just don’t have the innate faith necessary to believe with little to no proof. Granted, for many of us, that lack of faith may have come as a direct result of education and logical breakdown of the God argument.

    blufindr | Jun 30, 2009 | Reply

  116. That’s certainly the case with me. I lost it at 15. (Which was a hell of a long time ago) Anyway, I just thought of something. Have you guys ever debated whether Jesus actually existed or not? I know of a website that has a paper by a Jewish scholar who’s studied this extensively, and he contends that there is no evidence whatsoever that Jesus actually existed. I’ve done some research, and he’s right, there’s no concrete evidence whatsoever. On top of that, Bethlehem didn’t exist until more than 100 years after he was supposedly born there. If he’s right, then Christianity is based a complete myth. Interesting stuff. Nothing pisses off a Christian more than telling them there was no Jesus. There’s a theory that he’s a composite of three radical Rabbis that did exist around that time.

    bobby | Jul 1, 2009 | Reply

  117. @bobby: Oh, there’s no doubt in my mind that there was someone(s) who went around spouting religious babble around that time. But as you said, there’s no concrete evidence. I mean, even the Shroud of Turin has been exposed as a hoax. So, I dunno.

    Christianity, as a whole, bothers me on a deep, deep level. It preaches tolerance, while going on anti-gay crusades. They preach love, while encouraging anti-abortion protests. Christianity, for me, has got to be one of the most hypocritical cults in the whole of human history.

    blufindr | Jul 1, 2009 | Reply

  118. Surely, as an atheist you would consider that the human makes the beliefs, not that the beliefs make the human? Even if on an individual scale, when influenced by others, this holds true.

    Therefore, it seems to me that it is the human doing these acts of stupidity and cruelty. Is it too big a leap to suggest that even without the religious beliefs they may well have done exactly the same things?

    For example, plenty of people believe in science over religion, and believe things that the rest of the world would take to be stupid and leading to cruelty. Racial superiority, aliens on or around earth performing experiments, anyone who listens to snake oil salesmen- to be honest, to me your blog reads as a sad and occasionally funny list of idiotic things people have done, not people who weren’t atheists.

    Lotti | Jul 1, 2009 | Reply

  119. When my daughter was a sophomore in high school, the marching band did Prince of Egypt as their show. I rented the movie so she could watch it. (I’m 39 if you’re wondering. lol. I had my daughter when I was 19.) My son was in middle school then. When it got to the part where god kills all the Egyptian firstborns, he started sobbing. “Why would god do that??” I told him god isn’t real, and I wouldn’t worship him if he were. But what do Christians say in a situation like that? Or do their kids just grow up already knowing that their god does horrible things to you if you don’t watch out?

    I’m pretty doubtful that Jesus existed. There’s nothing in the story of Jesus that wasn’t in tons of pre-Christian pagan religions. Mithras and Osiris are particularly Jesus-y. I think they likely piled all these supernatural things onto some rabbi(s) and then just invented a new name. But biblical “history” is that way. AFAICT, most of it is either completely made up or seriously overblown. Accuracy has never been a big thing for them, anyway.

    Heidi | Jul 1, 2009 | Reply

  120. @Lotti This is the last time I’m going to say this. The next person has to read the 50 gazillion other posts that have already said it.

    These people ARE NOT just theists who HAPPENED to commit a crime that has nothing to do with their religion. There are many crimes that don’t. But every single person listed in the blog post behaved the way they did BECAUSE THEIR RELIGION TOLD THEM TO!

    FSM, what don’t you people get?

    Heidi | Jul 1, 2009 | Reply

  121. I’m pretty doubtful that Jesus existed…. Accuracy has never been a big thing for them, anyway.

    Never let ignorance get in the way of having a decent expert opinion and a strong grasp of irony, Heidi, good work! Perhaps you disbelieve the historians who, as a general society of believers in history, do accept that he existed as a human being?

    >@Lotti This is the last time I’m going to say this.

    Now I’m sorry! :O Hopefully you managed a modicum of civility the first fifty gazillion times you explained this.

    >The next person has to read the 50 gazillion other posts that have already said it.

    Thanks to this blog and your post, I finally understand that when many people think one thing, it cannot be true. Thank you, Ma’am.

    >These people ARE NOT just theists who HAPPENED to commit a crime that has nothing to do with their religion. There are many crimes that don’t.

    And you and the rather smug blog-maker decided that just because the manner related to the religions, the religious beliefs were the cause and at fault. Quite a leap. Please provide evidence that people would not starve their children if there was no religion.

    >But every single person listed in the blog post behaved the way they did BECAUSE THEIR RELIGION TOLD THEM TO!

    RELIGION doesn’t tell people anything. Religion isn’t a corporeal, living, cognitive creature. People tell people things, and the people getting told absorb as they decide to. (Admittedly, the lack of an education can arguably be seen as an intellectual disability, but the choice still exists.) To use an old and fairly silly example, if all your friends told you to, would you jump off a cliff?

    Who told you that their religion told them to do these things, and that they had no choice once that had happened?

    >FSM, what don’t you people get?

    Apparently, ignorance.

    Lotti | Jul 1, 2009 | Reply

  122. Congratulations. You’ve qualified for the theist stereotype of “everyone who disagrees with me is ignorant.” Thank you for playing.

    To use an old and fairly silly example, if all your friends told you to, would you jump off a cliff?

    Obviously I wouldn’t. That’s why I’m not a theist. But if you’re not going to live by what’s in your magic book, then what is the point of having the book in the first place? So you can play Make Your Own Christianity by choosing out the bits you like?

    Also, it seems like this has to be re-explained to theists all the time, but it is impossible to prove a negative. Prove to me that every theist isn’t a ticking time bomb waiting to murder abortion doctors. That would be as pointless an effort as what you asked me to prove. The point is that they *did* do those things because of their religion(s). Most of them because of specific customs and or instructions given in their religion(s). I’m truly sorry that you are unable to grasp the difference.

    Heidi | Jul 1, 2009 | Reply

  123. Thank God I’m an Atheist.

    Mac | Jul 1, 2009 | Reply

  124. technically the flying spaggetti monster is a god who is angry at the world for the lack of pirates. when i was a proclaimed athiest, one thing that bothered me was that many people associated that with devil worship, which doesn’t even make sence because being an athiest means that you don’t believe in satin. if you did that would be a form of believing in god. one thing i have to say is that i think a lot of people are rediculous, and that’s on both sides. when it comes to religion people should look at things with an open mind, most people are steadfast in whatever they believe in though, which is what causes the back and forth yelling at eachother, and by that i mean angrily typing. it’s like how my roommate says, he who yells loudest is correct.

    maddog | Jul 1, 2009 | Reply

  125. I don’t believe in satin either. I’m more of a taffeta kinda guy.

    bobby | Jul 1, 2009 | Reply

  126. @Lotti: Look, honestly, I don’t give a damn if the perpetrators of a crime were atheist, Buddhist, or Spag.Monsterist. The fact of the matter is not that they were religious while committing these crimes, the fact is that they committed them while following beliefs their religion has instilled in them. While it is possible that they could have performed these acts without religion, they chose to kill and torture while citing religion as their motivation. The sad truth is, they will probably never suffer for the crimes they have done, simply because they believe in a supernatural being.

    “Please provide evidence that people would not starve their children if there was no religion.”

    Please provide evidence that atheists knowingly starve their children because of their lack of belief in an all-powerful God.

    Actually, provide any evidence at all that atheists do cruel things because our lack of faith prompts us to. Anything, at all, on a par of what Christians etc have done in the name of their God.

    “Who told you that their religion told them to do these things, and that they had no choice once that had happened?”

    The depth of belief is insane, in some. I know people who were GLBT until they “found God” and started suppressing their homosexual desires because they “wished to be pure in the eyes of God.”

    @Heidi:

    “[...] what is the point of having the book in the first place? So you can play Make Your Own Christianity by choosing out the bits you like?”

    LOL, oh dear. Love, a great many Christians do this. I previously (a great many comments ago) listed a multitude of activities “banned” by the Bible, which are still indulged in by Christians. Their God must be really pissed.

    (OMG! That must be why the economy crashed! :O Well, they can’t possibly blame my people [queers] for that! Think of all the shellfish they’ve consumed!)

    @bobby: I think taffeta is overused. Let’s go back to using worm spit for clothing.

    blufindr | Jul 1, 2009 | Reply

  127. Exactly. I love it when religious people compare scientific “theories” to their doctrines like they were apples to apples. The mere fact that any scientist who might eventually be proven wrong by his/her peers would likely accept and amend his/her views based on the new data kinda says it all. A good scientist invites inquiry, the faith-motivated shun it.

    jacque_de_noir | Jul 1, 2009 | Reply

  128. Heidi-

    >Congratulations. You’ve qualified for the theist stereotype of “everyone who disagrees with me is ignorant.” Thank you for playing.

    Congratulations, your entire post is rude and condescending, and more to the point, wrong. I am an atheist. This little Them And Us world you’ve created might take a few cracks from that point, mightn’t it? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

    >>To use an old and fairly silly example, if all your friends told you to, would you jump off a cliff?

    >Obviously I wouldn’t. That’s why I’m not a theist.

    So you have here managed to lump all ‘theists’ in as one group who apparently, would jump off cliffs when told to by their friends. Please see above, where you have accused me of believing those who disagree with me are ignorant.

    >So you can play Make Your Own Christianity by choosing out the bits you like?

    I’m so sorry… this is confusing. Are you accusing the Christians who don’t kill all gays on sight and so forth of failing their religion, or of the ones who do of merely being Christians in the first place? So, which are the Christians you’re attacking at the moment?

    Say I have two families. Both are devout Islamic single mothers and widows, and both of them are told by someone of religious authority that their sixth child is possessed. One mother, as above, starves and tortures her child, the other takes the child to a doctor and perhaps discovers that he is suffering from an illness.

    Are you planning to criticise the first for torturing and starving her child or the second for taking only some parts of what someone else has called her religion?

    Or just both, for having beliefs about ‘magic’?

    I won’t address the rest of your post for the pathetic assumption that because I disagreed with you, I must be a believer, and the chiding maternal tone you adopted in the mistaken impression that it belonged in an intelligent discussion.

    http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

    blufindr-

    >While it is possible that they could have performed these acts without religion, they chose to kill and torture while citing religion as their motivation.

    Yes. And other have done the same under the guise of other reasons. The American government (and many others) under the idea of national security, the Chinese government (and again, others) in the name of communism- an anti-religious system.

    People will be people.

    >The sad truth is, they will probably never suffer for the crimes they have done, simply because they believe in a supernatural being.

    Putting aside the lunacy that that is some kind of universal truth, where it does happen, it is always wrong.

    >The depth of belief is insane, in some. I know people who were GLBT until they “found God” and started suppressing their homosexual desires because they “wished to be pure in the eyes of God.”

    You are here talking about fanaticism, rather than belief. I see atheists who argue against religion with similar such ferocity and it reminds me that I am an atheist due to a lack of belief, not because I hate religion and think all religious people are like the ones described above.

    Lotti | Jul 1, 2009 | Reply

  129. Aha, why is there no edit when I forgot to finish the bolding? Sorry about that.

    Lotti | Jul 1, 2009 | Reply

  130. Silk it is then. I love silk. It’s just so atheist. It’s made by atheist silk worms, processed by atheist workers in atheist China. It’s just so…atheist.

    bobby | Jul 1, 2009 | Reply

  131. @Lotti:

    The criticism here, comes in three parts.

    Firstly, a portion of blame is given to those who follow their religion, but only parts of it as they see fit. To me, at least, this seems illogical. How can people believe in certain parts, and dismiss completely other sections of the Bible? Surely, “true” Christians would not do so.

    Secondly, those who believe in the religion as a whole are also critiqued. As someone previously noted, this could allow the religion to instill truly horrific beliefs that lead nowhere good: misogyny, homophobia, and child abuse, amongst others.

    Thirdly, one must look at the previous two and see what they have in common. Lo and behold, religion is the only common factor. So religion, as an idea, is also to blame.

    I have repeated this so many times I’m surprised the keys on my laptop are still intact. People may still be people, but would these people still act the same without the pathological belief in something that has no tangible proof?

    Their actions are wrong. We can see that. They cannot. And if their peers are anything like them (hah!), they’ll probably never realise what they did was wrong. Think of the multiple places in the world where women, not men, are executed for being raped. This, too, is done under religious guises.

    There are few things done in the name of causes other than religion, that have caused anywhere near as much cumulative or immediate damage as religion has done.

    The line of belief vs. fanaticism is… arbitrary, at best. They would argue that they are not so much fanatics as fundamentalists. In my mind, there is little distinction between the two. Honestly, a lot of fundamentalist Christian beliefs are crazy enough to qualify as fanaticism.

    I’m not a man-bashing feminist, nor am I a religion-bashing atheist. But it’s difficult to view the actions listed above as anything but religion-endorsed cruelty.

    Besides which, Christianity, to me, is so flawed and easily bent (see previous point re: selective reading) that it seems like a corrupt concept.

    @bobby: Yeah, okay. Maybe not worm spit. What about spaghetti? Multi-purpose clothing, yeah! ::hi-5s::

    blufindr | Jul 1, 2009 | Reply

  132. Well said. It should be noted that not only do Christians pick and choose which parts of the Bible they want, Fundamentalism in the U.S. is an Old Testament based “faith”. Jesus supposedly said that they should not bind to the Old Testament, but follow his instructions, so for them to even call themselves Christians in the first place is hypocrisy. Then again, hypocrisy seems to be a fundamental element of all religions anyway…

    bobby | Jul 1, 2009 | Reply

  133. @Lotti tl;dr But fyi, I am “rude and condescending” to you, because you seem to be completely obtuse and particularly combative. Because of that, I find that I don’t like you. *shrug*

    @blufindr Make your own Christianity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExAw4hIhRIU LOL. That guy cracks me up.

    Heidi | Jul 1, 2009 | Reply

  134. I think you’re supposed to turn the other cheek…well, that’s the fictional Jesus said anyway..

    bobby | Jul 2, 2009 | Reply

  135. @Heidi: My computer, unfortunately, has decided that it would not like to run Youtube videos. Raincheck?

    @bobby: Not only does hypocrisy seem like a major ingredient of organised religion, lack of logic does, too. Check out the numerous contradictions in the Bible.

    blufindr | Jul 2, 2009 | Reply

  136. Aw, too bad. You would have liked it. It’s Doug Stanhope talking about how people are happy to believe the bible until it impacts their own life. So Noah is good, but the prohibition on pre-marital sex must be a typo. lol.

    Heidi | Jul 2, 2009 | Reply

  137. @Heidi: Right next to all those stone-able offences, right? I mean, disobedience to one’s parents, attempting to convert people to other religions, eating pork or coming into contact with dead pigs in any other way… these are all things that must be “wrong”, right?

    blufindr | Jul 2, 2009 | Reply

  138. Maybe we should band together, unite if you will. We could meet in a big open room on the same day every week, maybe Sundays. And we’ll talk about how righteous we are and how outsiders are wrong, maybe towards the end we’ll serve a small snack…. wait… hee hee maybe we should meet on a Wednesday.

    Carrie Ann | Jul 2, 2009 | Reply

  139. bobby – I’d love to see some debating on the existence of Jesus. I find him to be a composite fictional figure. There is, for instance, no documentation of his “crucifixion” and the Romans were very methodical record keepers. Perhaps the date was wrong ? But researching that event doesn’t get results no matter how well one converts from the Julian calender. Any documentation to the contrary has been proven to be false. Same as the Shroud.

    blufindr- You bet I wouldn’t want to live in a country that is theologically based. Ours keeps getting close. (then we elect a Democrat).

    In California the idiot Supreme Court upheld the Prop 8 vote. Damn that sucks. The fundamentalists made another ‘score’ in nibbling away at human rights. I’m not gay but abhor the idea of government controlling what I do in my private life. What will be next ? Controlling what I can download on the web ?? Oh wait, silly me, it’s already in the works. (thanks to Comcast).

    My GF told me yesterday that her summer school professor in her computing course likes to make ‘anti-gay’ jokes during his class. She has him on her digital voice recorder and told me she’s going to the dean with it if he keeps it up She’s bi and has a low threshold for discrimination. Good for her.

    ’til next time
    R

    Richard N | Jul 2, 2009 | Reply

  140. @blufindr

    Yeah, they have a long history of obsessing over whether people are getting stoned. :-P

    Heidi | Jul 2, 2009 | Reply

  141. Here is a scary link about that Oregon trial-

    http://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty/index.ssf/2009/07/jury_hears_father_recount_fait.html

    Richard N | Jul 2, 2009 | Reply

  142. I am having a really bad morning, folks. Sorry for the link that didn’t work.

    @Heidi

    I find it incredible that we live in a social order that is so fundamentally frightened that “medicine” might make you feel good. Where do they get that ?? (I do know but am throwing that out there anyway). I ‘had’ thought that the Hippocratic Oath would be a precursor to medicine being the “best possible” medicine for the ailment. Oh no… not in America where fundies go nuts over “pain being God’s punishment for being ill”. … or something along those lines.

    I hear the DEA is about to start crunching down on painkillers (again) over “over prescribing”. Oh, I get it… the DEA is now a branch of the AMA ?? Or– ‘Focus on the Family’ ??

    America is getting weird.
    R

    Richard N | Jul 2, 2009 | Reply

  143. @Carrie Ann: ::shrugs:: It worked to get the Christians where they are. Perhaps if we all started “organised atheism”, we’d get some durn respect! Goodness knows it’s not as if we can be persecuted any more…

    @Richard N: Actually, my boyfriend and I were discussing Prop 8 a while back, and came to the conclusion that it’ll do a lot to ensure that gay marriages are widely available, and soon. Sometimes, we gotta look past the short-term repression and see the lash-back that it’s caused, to properly evaluate the effect of an event.

    And indeed, good for her. We used to have a teacher who was openly sexist (in my high school). A group of us got together, recorded some of the more obscene examples, and got him thrown out for it. Course, this was all before I came here, so it’s hearsay from my end…

    That link about the Oregon child does depress one. How is it that in this day and age, people still rely purely on prayer and “the power of Christ” to save their children?

    Another thing I never understood about Christians: When something goes well, it’s a miracle of God. When something ends tragically, we “cannot question the way God works” etc. It’s one of those “turn the other cheek” things that made no sense to me, because either way, there’s no chance of even trying to convince them just how utterly flawed their belief system is.

    Then again, the whole practise of selective reading baffles the hell out of me.

    America is, indeed, getting weird. But y’all still have better internet than Australia does, and Brian lives up where you are, so… ::shrugs::

    Anyway, Bri and I came to the conclusion that oxytocin (can’t get that mixed up with oxycotin, not now that your people are cracking down on painkillers) is my drug of choice, so none of the other drug-related legislation is going to affect me anyway. ;)

    @Heidi: LOL! You sure do know how to cheer a girl up at 2.25AM.

    blufindr | Jul 2, 2009 | Reply

  144. Blah, the link to oxycotin failed miserably.

    Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxycotin

    blufindr | Jul 2, 2009 | Reply

  145. Richard -

    Not only is there no documentation of his crucifiction (I make zee leetle joke), but there is no record of Joseph and Mary arriving in Bethlehem at the supposed time of his birth, and the Romans were meticulous record keepers for tax purposes. This would indicate they either didn’t exist or never went to Bethlehem. Overall it can be said that no one could have raised a much of a stink in that area at that time without it being well documented, but there is no mention of this rebel until more than 100 years after he supposedly lived and died. Doesn’t wash. Christians will point to something that was written about someone who was supposedly him, one sentence, but the name was so common there is no way to prove it was him at all. So basically, there in not one shred of evidence that he existed and much evidence pointing to the idea that he didn’t.

    bobby | Jul 2, 2009 | Reply

  146. Blufindr -

    god moves in mysterious ways…

    bobby | Jul 2, 2009 | Reply

  147. @bobby: Oh, man, you just opened up a whole world of debate. And paved the way for some truly horrible innuendos.

    blufindr | Jul 2, 2009 | Reply

  148. Just to make a quick retort.

    I don’t recall drawing a direct comparison between atheism and violent crime. If you took it that was or if it was possible to construe anything i may have said, oops, but i stick by what i said and how i meant it. Not the meaning you may have taken from it.

    Also, my allegory to “god in the mirror” wasn’t also a direct corrolary to god is you. I’m merely saying your reverance for yourself should be far greater than for an imaginary-super-being or for any other person on the face of planet earth. To coin a joke.
    Watch out for #1 without stepping in #2. Is very appropos in my humble opinion.

    I’m not missing the point. I’m arguing the point. The difference is clear.

    How is doing something in the name of god any different for doing something in the name of truth justice and the (insert country name here) way. It’s all just an excuse to band together and do something one or more people feel justified in doing.

    So many people have joked, “If i talk to god i’m religious but if i talk to elvis I’m crazy”. The point is merely if everyones doing it you’re not crazy but it doesn’t make it any more legitimate.

    @Heidi: Woah.. seriously i didn’t expect anyone to get that riled up by anything i said. It isn’t either a) new or b) that inflammatory compared to many of the other things that were said in the preceding posts. I’m sorry you took it so personally. I really didn’t mean to offend you specifically.

    I’m not catholic or christian. Sure i may be baptized and have gone through the traditional catholic rituals from age 1-30 but the point is that i’m not practicing and i don’t subscribe to their view on life and spirituality.

    To make a point.

    If you look at science today mostly in the fields of subatomic study you’ll see that alot of physicists have become very spiritual. Many people have viewed documentaries like “What the *#$W@ we know” and “The Secret” as eye opening. I think they’re a little fringe myself but the point is there. There are things that are occuring in nature that, at the moment of course, science is having a difficult time explaining. It doesn’t mean that it won’t, we’re just not there yet as a civilization. We need more time. Can we move things with our minds, bend spoons, heal the sick and injured. NO. Not yet. But maybe one day. And that is what religion is steering us towards the understanding that it is merely possible. That there is a fabric that we cannot see that ties everyone together. Call it quarks and subatomic particles, string theory, m-theory, the force. I don’t really care. The point is that religion is the primer for the understanding of things we don’t already know. A shield agains the unknown unknowns until they become known unknowns, and eventually known knowns.

    It doesn’t mean religion is right, nor does it mean it’s the answer. It’s a tool and should be used as such. Not so black and white but it’s the only way i could think to phrase it.

    People who are taking a fundamentalist view on religion no matter how light-gray are depriving themselves of the understanding of the world around them. People who take a fundamentalist view of science no matter how light-gray are depriving themselves of touching the wondrous and un-understandable things that are happening around you TODAY.

    I fully believe there will be more questions tomorrow, that people will always “need” some kind of belief in the supernatural because theres always going to be that 1 thing that’s JUUUST out of our grasp. And thats scary. Really scary to alot of people out there. So they find whatever means possible to comfort themselves until the facts can be explained.

    @Richard N: I appreciate the kudos, all i mean to say is Deus Ex Machina. You’re perfect today. You’re better today than you were yesterday. If you need to be better tomorrow than you were today. You will be. All i’m saying is that you’re a perfect person in nobodies eyes but your own, a shame i admit, but you need prove nothing to anyone but yourself. Too many times, too many of us believe that we need to prove something to our fellow man, to our god(s), to our parents that we lose sight of ourselves. Western culture has taught us one thing daily and that is we’re not good enough, smart enough, thin enough, rich enough… etc. But it isn’t true. You’re who you were born to be, nothing more, and nothing less. I only attempted to reach the utmost praise for you when i said if ever you look for god (a perfect being) you need only look into a mirror.

    @Heidi: PS it is your feedback that i most look forward to. Humanities first steps toward complete understanding of the world is all i mean. Your embrace of atheism, of self discovery is respectable. I ask only that you humour me in my opinion, not take it or embrace it. I say only that you’re not wrong in your ideals. In fact as i said to richard, you yourself are perfect today. But tomorrow you may need to evolve and you will. I relish your opinions as you said/quoted amercian medial advice on BMI to blufindr several posts ago and I only ask why. Who says she should be between 8.5-20. Whether she were 1-200 she would be no less a perfect person. She may be unhealthy (technically special from a medical point of view) but she may not be any less happy. If she is capable of attaining happiness either very small or very large then she has achieved something some of us may never have in a lifetime. Fearlessness. But thanks for standing up to me and opening debate.

    Have a good weekend!

    Solifluction | Jul 2, 2009 | Reply

  149. @SolifluctionI’m not riled up. I type angry. LOL. Seriously, I’ve had quite a few people get onto me for being mad at them in print, and I’m sitting here going “eh?”

    I don’t understand how it is possible to have a “fundamentalist view of science.” Science = “This is what we know so far. We’re going to keep tweaking it when we have more evidence.”

    I relish your opinions as you said/quoted amercian medial advice on BMI to blufindr several posts ago and I only ask why.
    Because she has a poor body image, even though she is right in the zone considered healthiest by medical standards. Thanks, though, I think.

    Who says she should be between 8.5-20.
    Um, emedtv.com did. Also, it was between 18.5 and 24.9.

    Whether she were 1-200 she would be no less a perfect person.
    Yes, and?

    She may be unhealthy (technically special from a medical point of view) but she may not be any less happy. If she is capable of attaining happiness either very small or very large then she has achieved something some of us may never have in a lifetime.
    Did you even read her post?? “I’ve been basically starving myself for 6 months, from stress and dysmorphia.” I don’t think stress and dysmorphia are making her happy.

    Heidi | Jul 2, 2009 | Reply

  150. @Solifluction: Mate, if that’s a quick reply, never type an essay. There isn’t enough time in the world for me to read.

    Indeed, religion is a tool. And it’s been used as an excuse to prosecute and harm for long enough.

    I’m quite sure if I had a BMI of 45 or so. Something about the related health risks. I’m not so sure I’d be happy.

    And Heidi is quite right. When you get to know me, I’m neither a well nor a happy woman.

    blufindr | Jul 2, 2009 | Reply

  151. I have to share this… just happened about half hour ago on the bus.
    Somehow I’d told this lady that I wasn’t a believer; that I was an atheist. She bounced back with: “oh, the Bible warned us believers of false prophets and to ignore them”. So I said: “no, no lady, atheism isn’t a prophesy, it’s a total lack of any excuse for religious policy”. Then she said: “please leave me alone or I’ll have you removed from the bus.”

    Damn, that was going to be MY line !!!

    LOL.
    G’day

    Richard N | Jul 2, 2009 | Reply

  152. Blufindr -

    Innuendo is a delightful word. Sounds like a cheap impersonation of an Italian telling someone where he’d like to put it, and therefore the word itself is an innuendo. I’m also fond of oxymorons. Military intelligence and holy war are two of the best. Jumbo shrimp is good too.

    bobby | Jul 2, 2009 | Reply

  153. Blufindr -

    The threat to have you removed is classic religious fear at work. In his book The Book: On The Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are, Alan Watts stated that religious people need to prosthelytize because they have a nagging doubt at the back of their minds about their beliefs and the more people who think the way they do, the less doubt they have.

    bobby | Jul 2, 2009 | Reply

  154. @Richard N: That’s classic. Idiosyncratic fanatics are my favourite flavour of Christian. :P

    On that note, here. For the group to enjoy. :P

    @bobby: I’m partial to “Microsoft Works”. Ironic, since I’m tapping this out on a Vista laptop.

    blufindr | Jul 2, 2009 | Reply

  155. Solifluction -

    “It’s a tool and should be used as such.”

    That’s the very heart of the problem. The uses that tool is put to have caused deep and abiding harm to the human race. That’s not debatable, that’s a verifiable fact.

    bobby | Jul 2, 2009 | Reply

  156. Richard -

    I have a daughter who lives in Florida, and the reaction to that sign, while it would be similar in any state, would be especially harsh in Florida. It is, after all, the last stronghold of the KKK. The comments are revealing. “It’s bad for business.” The customers don’t like it, so it should be removed? Yeah, right. “It says don’t believe in god.” Well, no, it doesn’t, but critical thinking is thin on the ground in Florida so that doesn’t surprise me.

    bobby | Jul 2, 2009 | Reply

  157. @bobby: All that sunlight and peroxide must have killed too many brain cells…

    I suppose I should set up shop somewhere near a pro-Christianity sign, and protest about that. See what reaction they have to that.

    blufindr | Jul 2, 2009 | Reply

  158. @Richard: Yikes! Whst is she, five? “LALALALALALA, I can’t hear yooooouuuu!”

    @blufundr: *hug*

    That article is nuts! “recruitment billboard” indeed. That’s like saying bereavement support groups are recruiting people to off a family member.

    Heidi | Jul 2, 2009 | Reply

  159. @Heidi: Your reply made me giggle ^-^’

    ::hugs:: indeed. That article is a thousand kinds of crazy. (I wonder if that’s anything like thousand-island dressing?)

    blufindr | Jul 2, 2009 | Reply

  160. @ solifluction:you suffer from hypergraphia.

    proud kuffar | Jul 2, 2009 | Reply

  161. @solifluction

    what makes you think people with hypergraphia are suffering?

    bobby | Jul 2, 2009 | Reply

  162. Oops. I meant proud kuffar…

    bobby | Jul 2, 2009 | Reply

  163. @Proud Kuffar: Yea. i agree with bobby. I think people heretofore reading the posts of those with hypergraphia are the sufferers. :) Mea culpa.

    @Blufindr: Never said you *were* happy. Just if you were it wouldn’t be a bad thing. Had you been happy etc. etc. is all I meant.

    @Heidi: I understand your point. It is sometimes hard to determine tone and intent through text. C’est la vie. Of course i read those posts. It would be awful of me to go off on diatribes expecting you all to read paragraphs of gobbledegook and not give you the same respect in kind. I was just saying… what i just said above to her. Y’know.

    @Bobby (i think): My mousewheel is broken and i’ve been stricken with malaise preventing me from scrolling up to check. I’m sure it was you.
    Religion is a tool and should be used as such meaning my I build my house with my hammer, rather than i own a hammer so i should build a house. A Point of note only that I know “other people” out there use religion for a thousand reasons and not all of them good. And while in the real world a few bad ables spoil the whole bunch is relatively the casee… It’s up to the atheists to be the bigger people and be understanding and potentially more enlightened to work WITH the theists for a better tomorrow, rather than without them.
    Yes you won’t be able to work with ALL of the theists but there will always be theists so why fight that.

    Prohibition never worked, was never going to work, couldn’t work. But they did it any way hoping for better tomorrows. But alcohol does make people do funny things. Scale notwithstanding. I’m just saying is all :)

    @Heidi: PS. I’m also a ravenous optimist so more than anything that prevents me from accepting someones UNhappyness and merely letting it go unspokento… People have said i’m infectious… or was that infection?? what., what? :)

    Solifluction | Jul 3, 2009 | Reply

  164. @Solifluction: My current situation in life means that any happiness I receive comes directly from the unknowing suffering of another. So, my being happy right now is a morally terrible thing.

    blufindr | Jul 3, 2009 | Reply

  165. @blufindr: Nuh-uh. I made you giggle. :-P

    Are you on anti-depressants? I’ve been on two for a while now, plus anti-anxiety meds when I need them. It’s not a perfect solution, but it helps.

    Heidi | Jul 3, 2009 | Reply

  166. “I don’t think it’s religion itself that’s to blame, though. I mean, aside from the fact that it inherently encourages believers to absorb “facts” that hold no logic whatsoever, it’s innocuous enough. The trouble lies with the fundamentalists who use it as an excuse to do whatever.”

    I must argue against this. Have you ever actually read the bible? That’s just the christian side of it, but all these religions are the same way. Yes I have read more then one “holy book” cover to cover. I’m not going into all of that here, just using christian belief because that is how I was raised and am the most familiar with.

    The Bible commands these types of atrocities. Yes there are many christian people who even when shown these commands make up some excuse about that is not how it is today, that things have changed, whatever… but there are also those like the people in this article who read what their holy book tells them to do, and since their god is telling them to do it, they do it.

    Lotti this goes for you too. I mean can you really say an atheist is going to stone a christian for going to a Muslim coffee shop?

    Plus, the fact still remains that these people will NOT be punished the same as an atheist would be. the reason they will not be punished is BECAUSE they believe they have to because their “god” wants it that way.

    WWM | Jul 3, 2009 | Reply

  167. @solifluction:

    You’re right. I’m not saying atheists should shun the religious. All I want is for them to leave me alone. I don’t want to “work” with them. I’ve always been a live and let live person, but increasingly Christians want to impose their “values” on the rest of us, atheists and others alike. Here in New Zealand every Easter we have an ongoing battle over whether shops should be allowed to open, and the Christians try to claim they only want the shops closed so those poor workers get a day off, completely ignoring that those who want to work could do the shifts and those who don’t wouldn’t. It’s not about that, it’s about imposing their religion on the rest of us. Sneaky bastards.

    bobby | Jul 3, 2009 | Reply

  168. @Heidi: True :P

    My situation in life also does not permit medication, as yet. Also, my moods are so precarious that they are rarely classified as symptoms of a disorder.

    @WWM: I was referring to religion as the base idea of an all-powerful, loving God who we must obey. But you’re absolutely right. The Bible commands it.

    Selective readers, though…

    @bobby: Given that Easter was originally Ostara, which is a Wiccan holiday, I’d say they were trying to push us towards paganism, rather than Christianity. ;)

    blufindr | Jul 3, 2009 | Reply

  169. @blufindr

    Oh, believe me, the issue of Ostara comes up in letters to the editor all the time. They vehemently deny that Christianity usurped the vernal equinox celebration. They swear it’s an atheist lie and furthermore they’re sick of us perpetuating it! It’s been pointed out to them that even if Jesus did exist, he wasn’t born in December because the Gregorian Calendar was in use at that time, not the Julian, so he would have been born in late March or early April. That’s pretty solid proof that they did in fact usurp the winter solstice celebration with their Jesus fairytale. Sometimes I think there’s just no way to get along with these people. They resort to lies and hypocrisy whenever they’re backed into a corner.

    bobby | Jul 3, 2009 | Reply

  170. @bobby: That’s when I do my whole hippie, nature-worship thing in my conservative Christian uncle’s house.

    “What? I’m just celebrating the roots of Christianity.”

    I’m trying to see just how red I can get his face. The bulgy vein around his temple is pretty awesome to see, as well.

    blufindr | Jul 3, 2009 | Reply

  171. @blufindr

    When I was young (oh so long ago…) I enjoyed riling up the monkeys at the zoo. The maques were especially easy, you’d just make a face at them and show your teeth and they’d go ballistic. Sorta like baiting Christians, eh? Same intelligence level is many cases…

    bobby | Jul 3, 2009 | Reply

  172. @bobby: Oh yes, precisely.

    I like arguing with my uncle about his so-called “tolerance” towards gay men. He derides them at almost every opportunity he gets. And it is fucking hilarious to be like “But doesn’t the Bible usually dictate that you should love everyone?”

    Religious debates + not-very-close family = FUN!

    blufindr | Jul 3, 2009 | Reply

  173. @blufindr

    I see we have a lot in common. I grew up in San Francisco, but my father’s family is from rural east Texas. We used to go there every other year in the summer for a couple of weeks, and I was forced to attend Sunday school at my grandmother’s Assembly of God church (holy rollers). One day I was bored so I wrote a poem on the blackboard that I had read in a hippie newspaper .

    The moon is a pearl in the head of Buddha.
    Buddha is a pearl in the head of god.
    God is an oyster?

    What a commotion that caused. I still relish the memory.

    bobby | Jul 3, 2009 | Reply

  174. @bobby: LOL Oh, that’s brilliant.

    I haven’t done anything truly amusing, re: Christians, for a good while, though. My prankster side has gone to ground :\

    blufindr | Jul 3, 2009 | Reply

  175. You’re right. I’m not saying atheists should shun the religious. All I want is for them to leave me alone.

    This is the heart of the matter. I don’t care what you believe. I don’t even care what you do, as long as it doesn’t hurt innocent people, interfere with me, or scare the horses. So please, don’t make me care! When you hurt other people, I’ve got to care. When you interfere with research or science, I’ve got to care. Please, stop it!

    Dave Hitt | Jul 4, 2009 | Reply

  176. @Dave: Gotta disagree with you a little on the science. Most of the time, we are so concerned with how to do things, we don’t concern ourselves with whether we should.

    I, for one, am against head transplants. But that opens up a whole other can of worms.

    blufindr | Jul 4, 2009 | Reply

  177. “I, for one, am against head transplants. But that opens up a whole other can of worms.”

    took me a couple minutes to stop laughing long enough to reply. Though I do agree that science does not always follow a moral high road. There are twisted fanatics in science just as there are in religion.

    WWM | Jul 4, 2009 | Reply

  178. this is some scary shit! i would have left out the first listing though, about the pedophile priest. this list is comprised of horrific acts carried out due to one’s faith. that pedophile is a pedophile because he’s a pedophile, not because he’s a priest. it just makes it that much more horrific since he was a man of the cloth. there are plenty of aesthetic pedophiles i’m sure.

    zizz | Jul 8, 2009 | Reply

  179. I came across a blog on alphainventions last week that chilled me to the bone. It’s one of the numerous Christian blogs, and the author was asserting that it’s the duty of every Christian to try to convert every non-Christian they come into contact with. To bring them to Jesus, as he put it. He further asserted that those who don’t do this are in league with the devil! He called this activity “jamming light down the throat of darkness”. He also used a military analogy concerning how bomber pilots know they’re over the target, it’s when they’re getting a lot of flak from the ground. He then asked his readers, “how much flak have you been getting lately?”. Truly scary stuff.

    bobby | Jul 8, 2009 | Reply

  180. See, and that’s the problem with the fundies. Their religion relies on them bothering me with it for the rest of ever until/unless they manage to brainwash me. I feel like we should start calling them militant Christians.

    Heidi | Jul 8, 2009 | Reply

  181. @bobby: That is some seriously whacked stuff! Thankfully, all my Christian friends and partner know that I’m happy to be going to hell. ;)

    blufindr | Jul 9, 2009 | Reply

  182. @blufidr:

    I saw another one yesterday where the author of the blog stated that the lives of people who hadn’t accepted Jesus into their hearts were completely without joy or meaning. Sometimes when I’m putting my blog in to Alphainventions the cycle gets stuck and I end up reading bits of these Christian blogs. Some of that stuff is just too stupid for words.

    bobby | Jul 9, 2009 | Reply

  183. I’m going to hell for reading this and laughing but what the hell….a smile a day keeps the doctor away

    Randy | Jul 9, 2009 | Reply

  184. @Randy:

    Oh, that’s ok Randy, you were going to hell anyway.

    bobby | Jul 9, 2009 | Reply

  185. If I get there first, I’ll save everybody a seat.

    Heidi | Jul 9, 2009 | Reply

  186. No you won’t, you’ll be too busy shaking hands with all your family and friends that got there first, silly.

    bobby | Jul 9, 2009 | Reply

  187. This is priceless! At a Roman Catholic church on Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean the face of Jesus appeared in the pleats of a chair cushion sat on by a priest. Thousands have flocked to see this “miracle”. To make a long story short, apparently some priest farted on chair cushion and the face of Jesus appeared. The head of the church called it “a sign from god.”

    Damn, I wish I could make stuff like this up!

    bobby | Jul 9, 2009 | Reply

  188. “Roman Catholic church on Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean the face of Jesus appeared in the pleats of a chair cushion sat on by a priest”

    Got a reference for this? I couldn’t find one.

    Nate Lockwood | Jul 9, 2009 | Reply

  189. Hi Nate.

    couriermail.com.au is the website.

    Look up:

    Face of Christ ‘appears in cushion’ at Jesus-Misericordieux church Reunion

    bobby | Jul 9, 2009 | Reply

  190. Also, if you look under “weird stuff” there’s an article about the virgin mary in a tree stump. Strange days indeed…

    bobby | Jul 9, 2009 | Reply

  191. Hi, and thanks, my first search didn’t find anything. Bet the image didn’t appear to have a full beard and short hair!

    Nate Lockwood | Jul 9, 2009 | Reply

  192. Did you check out the virgin mary in the tree trunk? Try as I might I simply can’t see it, and i’ve had pareidolia (seeing faces in everyday ojects) all my life. Those people are desperate and sad.

    bobby | Jul 9, 2009 | Reply

  193. Oh, I forgot, also on there is an article with the headline “Pope orders probe into conservatives”.

    I’m all in favour of that. They’ve been doing it to choir boys for centuries.

    bobby | Jul 9, 2009 | Reply

  194. I thought this and this were completely relevant to the topic at hand.

    @bobby: I can’t help seeing American powerpoints like faces. I giggle like a little girl every time I see one.

    blufindr | Jul 10, 2009 | Reply

  195. @blufindr: Ok, that first one made me LOL. “How do you figure that?” “Item 7″ But it also reminded me a lot of winning the lottery on The Island.

    You’re special. You have a very special purpose in life. You’ve been chosen. The Island awaits you.

    Here’s your cannibal cracker.

    Heidi | Jul 10, 2009 | Reply

  196. Brilliant! We should all kiss Frank’s ass. Yeah, powerpoints are a common one. Door hinges are good too. And knotty pine panelling, well, forget it…

    bobby | Jul 10, 2009 | Reply

  197. Xtianity=learned psychosis. These cases are fine evidence on that point.

    proud kuffar | Jul 10, 2009 | Reply

  198. Well, given the statistics on how few christians actually know anything at all about what’s in the bible I wouldn’t really call it learned. More like just blindly accepting what they’ve been told because it’s so much easier than thinking, which makes their heads hurt.

    bobby | Jul 10, 2009 | Reply

  199. They don’t read the book, but they do learn in church that they’re special, better, and need to force their superiority on the rest of us.

    Heidi | Jul 10, 2009 | Reply

  200. @Heidi: You are absolutely correct. Instil a sense of self-righteousness in a large group of people, and no matter how much logic you throw at them, they’ll still shrilly insist you take Jesus as your Lord and Saviour.

    blufindr | Jul 10, 2009 | Reply

  201. I’d rather take Door Number 3. I like surprises.

    bobby | Jul 10, 2009 | Reply

  202. @bobby: BOO!

    (I hope I didn’t scare you.)

    blufindr | Jul 11, 2009 | Reply

  203. Hey, I said I like surprises! Thanks. Besides, nothing is scarier than the blank-faced Jehovah’s Witnesses that show up on my doorstep every now and then. I just don’t understand why they leave so quickly when they see the black candles and pentagrams…

    bobby | Jul 11, 2009 | Reply

  204. It’s a fine line between religious fervor and insanity, eh?

    Kismet | Jul 14, 2009 | Reply

  205. @bobby: Know a fun thing to do? Answer the door in nothing but camo-paint and a strategically-placed, realistic toy gun. Tell them to come inside, because you have information that the Rapture is coming. Get friends to throw buckets of fake blood around, and scream like they’re being tortured. Yell at them, then turn to the JWs with a manic grin and say something along the lines of “Gee, chainsaws are awfully fun, aren’t they?”

    Haven’t had a JW on my street since Christ was a boy.

    Also, bobby, you wouldn’t happen to have a link to that blog you mentioned, would you?

    blufindr | Jul 14, 2009 | Reply

  206. @bluefindr

    Which one? I know of several. The really good one I’ve been following lately (not that this is one isn’t good, it’s very good actually) is on Condron.us, but the name escapes me at them moment, I’ll let you know next time it pops up, but on Blogspot there’s That Atheist Bitch and on WordPress there’s Proud Atheist. Things get a bit heated on that one, there’s an atheist on there who lives in a very black and white world an can be difficult, so I don’t go there much. I don’t need the aggravation.

    Anyway, the one on Condron.us had a great quote:

    Give a man a fish and he’ll eat for a day,
    give him religion and he’ll starve to death praying for a fish.

    Not perfect, but clever just the same.

    bobb | Jul 14, 2009 | Reply

  207. I found it. Here’s the site. Really good stuff on there:

    http://religionismanmade.blogspot.com/

    bobb | Jul 14, 2009 | Reply

  208. @bobby: I was talking of that “jamming light” dude.

    blufindr | Jul 14, 2009 | Reply

  209. Oh, him. That’s a site called ru.min.a.tions

    He’s usually on Alpha, but I haven’t seen him for a few days. Then again, a lot of people have left Alphainventions. My blog gets 1/3 of the hits it did a couple of months ago. It’s a combination of bad management (the site breaks down frequently) and the constant barrages from idiots like ru.min.a.tions and his fellow religious nuts and the right wing idiots and their constant whining about how America has gone to hell because Sarah Palin isn’t running the show.

    bobby | Jul 14, 2009 | Reply

  210. @bobby: Link? :P

    I’ve had a lot more hits on my blog since I linked back here. ::shrugs::

    I dunno, nuts of any variety (saving pea-, hazel-, and that kind of nut) are pretty irritating. Some fanatical atheists who are atheists because they loathe Christianity are innocuous enough, but they still whine a lot.

    blufindr | Jul 14, 2009 | Reply

  211. What sites are you promoting your blog on, and do you check the breakdown of where your hits are coming from?

    bobby | Jul 15, 2009 | Reply

  212. @bobby: Eh, I don’t promote my blog. A lot of what I write is daily rambling about my day. There’s only the occasional general-interest post.

    I check how many subscribers I have on Feedburner. I have a lot more subscribers now than I had before. Hence, I’m pretty sure this blog is to blame.

    Mind you, I don’t particularly care all that much. :P My blog is just somewhere for me to rant. Not necessarily for people to read.

    blufindr | Jul 15, 2009 | Reply

  213. Just found this great blog entry. Essentially, the writer logically deconstructs the idea of God.

    blufindr | Jul 15, 2009 | Reply

  214. “Hey, I said I like surprises! Thanks. Besides, nothing is scarier than the blank-faced Jehovah’s Witnesses that show up on my doorstep every now and then. I just don’t understand why they leave so quickly when they see the black candles and pentagrams…”

    Bobby, I’ve never seen another JW since I pulled this trick out. I looked out the window and saw them coming, so I stripped down to my boxers and when they rang the bell I came running to the door. As I wiped it open I blurted out, “you’re finally here! the summoning orgy is already behind schedule! hurry up and get in here, leave your clothes on the couch and get down to the basement… oh wait, are you the guys Jonny invited? No? You didn’t see a thing, but I suggest you take cover before the lord rises.”

    that was a couple years ago and I still haven’t seen another one here. :)

    WWM | Jul 16, 2009 | Reply

  215. @WWM: BRILLIANT! I need to remember to pull that one off after I move, if JWs come to my door.

    blufindr | Jul 16, 2009 | Reply

  216. It isn’t faith’s fault, it’s PEOPLE. PEOPLE take what they get, be it Christianity, The Crow or friggin’ Macaroni for pete’s sake, and with their twisted ideas on the matter, they make their own choices, damn it.

    So if a guy strolls into a mini-mart, shoots three people and blames it on his religion, then it’s religion’s fault, and not his, right? He’s free to go, right? Well, based on the idea that religion is at fault for all of the world’s violence and pain, then yeah, he’s innocent.

    No, he isn’t. We’re given so much in this world, but the most important thing is what WE CHOOSE to do with it. The power of choice can be appreciated by people of all/no faiths, don’t you think?

    And what about the genuinely good things that people do in the name of faith? There are many more out there who celebrate their faith in the name of goodwill- who would rather feed and clothe you than judge and condemn you- than their are morons out there who ruin it with unwarranted judgement, or even violence. Why doesn’t anyone ever remember those who keep the true spirit alive?

    Eric | Jul 17, 2009 | Reply

  217. @Eric: The power of choice can indeed be appreciated. The choices these people made, can be generally accepted as terrible. However, they still have an “out”. I don’t think there are any commenters on this that genuinely believe religion itself is a terrible thing. I mean, it is a form of mass psychosis (specifically, organised religion), but there are some Christian values that can be accepted as good and valuable.

    Nor do I believe there are any persons here who blame religion entirely for these people’s actions. I, personally, blame the people themselves for manipulating religion to their beliefs. But the fact is that religious documents give them at the very least, a scapegoat, which logically fits for a lot of people. Religion, in a way, gives people an excuse to act in anachronistic or outright harmful ways. And really, that’s my main issue with it.

    Also, Eric? I’m sure a lot of these people would argue that they are the ones “who keep the true spirit alive”.

    blufindr | Jul 17, 2009 | Reply

  218. I don’t think there are any commenters on this that genuinely believe religion itself is a terrible thing.

    I do. Anything designed to encourage and reward belief not only the in absence of evidence, but also in the face of contrary evidence, is, IMO, doing harm in and of itself. That’s without even getting into the problems with evangelism or the batshit insane way some people like to interpret their holy books.

    @Eric:
    The true spirit of what? Delusion? When you heard about the woman in Queens who set her six-year-old daughter on fire did you celebrate the voodoo practitioners who keep the true spirit? I mean, there are probably plenty of voodoo people who will come over to your house and exorcise your evil spirits for you. Maybe with dead chickens or something. Very thoughtful of them, don’t you think? And certainly not every voodoo person sets their kids on fire, right?

    Heidi | Jul 17, 2009 | Reply

  219. I don’t think there are any commentators on this that genuinely believe religion itself is a terrible thing.

    I’m going to go with Heidi on this one. It’s all about a mind-set (religion) that, if interpreted poorly, leads to behavior that can be said to be bad. While an argument can be made that those folks make bad decisions, the other side of that argument is that they are so deluded that they can’t help but make bad decisions. In other words, their points of reference are faulty thanks to the theist propaganda.

    I think that is a reason why, no matter how hard one tries, the theists can’t/won’t listen to your point of view (atheism). They are incapable of putting what you say into a logical frame of reference because that does not exist for them.

    So, yes- religion “can be” dangerous if for no other reason than it prevents logical reasoning. I shudder at the thought of folks that can’t “think” (and/or reason) being in charge of anything important… like, oh say… weapons of mass destruction.

    On the other hand, I think religion “can be” a passive avenue for comfort- if taken with an open mind. But aren’t these folks also taking only what they need from it and ignoring the rest ?? My Mom does the Christian bit.. takes care of poor folks, gives some money and so on. It makes her happy. I can’t see her bombing an abortion clinic. But she has an open mind and even admits a lot of what is in the bible is rubbish to believe at face value.
    So, perhaps for her it isn’t dangerous because she still reasons and thinks it all through. To tell the truth I think she goes because all her friends do. She’s also 87 and that may be a factor.

    Now, think of a 17 year old Yemeni Muslim boy who has been raised to believe that Americans are infidels and deserve death. Is his belief dangerous ?? Gee… maybe ?

    Richard N | Jul 17, 2009 | Reply

  220. Richard, I can’t help but agree with everything you said here, but unfortunately there are too many who will keep arguing that religion did not teach them this (even though this type of behavior is documented in their holy books as right)

    WWM | Jul 17, 2009 | Reply

  221. Apparently, there is something in the New Testament that says the laws laid down in the Old Testament should be taken with a grain of salt. If you notice, some of almost all of the misogynistic, socially-harmful credos that Christians claim to believe in are in the Old Testament.

    Well, I guess Xtianity has covered its own ass fairly well in this regard, if that passage exists.

    blufindr | Jul 17, 2009 | Reply

  222. Actually, Jesus states (well, it says Jesus said…) that no one will enter the kingdom of heaven except through him, and he tells them to ignore the old testament. So if all these “Christians” actually believe in Jesus, then none of them are going to heaven since they adhere strictly to the old testament and ignore Jesus’ admonitions about turning the other cheek, loving the sinner and all that happy horse shit. It’s just soooooo much easier to rally around “eye for an eye” and “spare the rod and spoil the child” and kill your neighbour if he looks at your womenfolk and all that other stuff they love so much. Christianity has nothing to do with Christ. Not in the least.

    bobby | Jul 17, 2009 | Reply

  223. I call BS on that whole new covenant thing. If they’re supposed to ignore the old testament, then why do they want to teach creationism in schools? Why do they insist on trying to get the ten commandments posted in public buildings? And why do they hate on gay people? AFAIAC, if it’s in the book, it’s in the book. If they don’t want to be called on the “old” part, they should chop those pages out.

    Heidi | Jul 17, 2009 | Reply

  224. I think it’s because there are a lot of Xtians (got lazy, sorry) who haven’t even read the Bible. I know Xtians who don’t know certain passages from the Bible that even I know.

    blufindr | Jul 18, 2009 | Reply

  225. Yeah, like the part where it says not to put up a tree and decorate with silver and gold like the pagans do? lol.

    Heidi | Jul 18, 2009 | Reply

  226. Atheists have killed people in Cambodia and Russia (Buddhist monks and Eastern Orthodox priests respectively) for being religious people. Atheism generally doesn’t have power over most societies in the world but in places where it has it has historically proven capable of being just as bloodthirsty when dealing with heretics or ideological rivals.

    Many of the people here don’t represent the mainstream of religion today (yes there are some very nasty places where people may kill you based on religious understandings there) but in most societies that have and allow religious belief (freedom) that is outside the norm.

    Also some of the people mentioned on the list hardly serve as examples of mainstream thought among their own specific religions. Pedophiles’ activities aren’t actively encouraged/openly embraced by Catholic theology and JWs that I have spoken with generally do not support their members actively doing violence-this is part of why they discourage members from joining militaries as they may be called upon to kill other human beings.

    On top of that, this list strikes me as mentioning nasty things people outside of your group/ideology have done so that you can claim your group/ideology is better while you (purposefully?) ignore the nasty things done by members of your group/ideology. Not an honest description of things.

    Heidi, not all “Christians” approach the Bible the same way nor believe exactly the same interpretation(s) of it. Thus some may have a different take on the Old Testament than others.

    pplr | Jul 18, 2009 | Reply

  227. Atheists have killed people in Cambodia and Russia (Buddhist monks and Eastern Orthodox priests respectively) for being religious people.

    Funny, though, how in Cambodia the people hate the Christian missionaries. My sister lives there, and has lived there for years working with deported felons and with harm reduction. Christian missionaries withhold aid there unless you pray to their god. My niece and grandnephew also live there, and my father lived there for a couple of years.

    Pedophiles’ activities aren’t actively encouraged/openly embraced by Catholic theology

    No, but they cover it up and move the offenders to a new parrish.

    Heidi | Jul 18, 2009 | Reply

  228. Actually Heidi, as far as I know Catholic officials have stopped doing that and Catholic theology in general doesn’t approve of pedophilia so those that are pedophiles could be accused of sinning against their faith and/or breaking their vows.

    If the missionaries do that then it is too bad and I don’t think they should. I’m also curious about which church they belong to. However you may have missed that I specifically pointed to the killing of Buddhist monks in Cambodia.

    I didn’t know Cambodians had anything against Christians and yours is the first such comment I’ve heard. Next question would be why. Is Christianity associated with foreigners and is there a strong dislike off foreigners? Have there been notably corrupt Christian figures there? Is this only with one group of people not people there in general? Is there a locally rumored negative myth about Christians (in China during and leading up to the “Boxer Rebellion” Christian missionaries were accused of taking children so they could eat them in cannibalistic rituals. You may or may not be Christian but I’m pretty sure you agree that orphanages run but Christian groups aren’t done so for the sake of serving as food storage areas.

    pplr | Jul 18, 2009 | Reply

  229. @pplr

    No, no one has been killed specifically for being religious, except by other religious people for being the wrong religion. People who have been killed by the non-religious were killed for trying to impose their beliefs on those who don’t want them. A very important distinction that the religious like to ignore. Dealing with heretics? No, dealing with those who would impose their beliefs.

    Paedophiles are indeed encouraged by the Church inasmuch as they are sheltered and hidden when they’re found out.

    We mention nasty things here to feel superior? Hardly. We mention those nasty things as the reasons we detest religion. Religious idiots are always quick to claim they’re being persecuted when they don’t get their way. Boo hoo.

    You say that not all Christians approach the Bible the same way. Therein lies the very reason the Bible is a bad piece of work. It can be used to support whatever twisted agenda the freaks want it too.

    Religion is bullshit. Religion creates strife and separation wherever it appears. And don’t bother telling me about all the good works that are done in the name of religion, the same good works are done without religion by people who don’t seek to force inane crap down the throats of those they help. The world would be a much better place without religion.

    bobby | Jul 18, 2009 | Reply

  230. I just saw a Christian blog go by in the cycle wherein the pinhead author reached the conclusion:

    “I need to think less and pray more.”

    That’s it in a nutshell. Thinking leads to being rational if you do enough of it. Can’t have that! Might finally realize that superstition is horse shit!

    bobby | Jul 18, 2009 | Reply

  231. I just told you why the Cambodians (at least those in Phnom Penh) hate the missionaries. Needed aid is dependent on praying to someone else’s god. There is a great resentment of this blatant disrespect of local culture, belief and tradition. Simply put, the missionaries behavior is offensive to them. How many people do you know in Cambodia? Why do you think you should have heard of this? It’s not some kind of newsworthy item.

    So you discount the shuffling of Catholic priests to new parishes (and presumably the whole Ryan Report thing in Ireland) because it apparently ended within the past few years? How long ago was it that Pol Pot was killing anyone? (Note that I am not defending his regime.)

    I would say any orphanages run by missionary groups are there for the purpose of gaining new converts. It’s naive to think that missionary work is not about spreading the religion. Again, I assume you weren’t speaking of a Ryan Report type situation.

    As to what you said before, the reason I personally think belief has an overall negative contribution to society is that it encourages belief in the face of contradicting evidence, while at the same time it discourages questioning authority and rational thinking. So you get people thinking that they can only get rid of their alien body thetans sent by Xenu by giving large sums of money to the church of Scientology. And they never question the fact that the whole thing was made up by a science fiction writer who repeatedly said the best way to make a million dollars is to start a religion. And don’t even get me started on the whole “Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain” Mormon thing where there is no evidence because the golden tablets went to heaven.

    Heidi | Jul 18, 2009 | Reply

  232. No, no one has been killed specifically for being religious, except by other religious people for being the wrong religion. People who have been killed by the non-religious were killed for trying to impose their beliefs on those who don’t want them. A very important distinction that the religious like to ignore. Dealing with heretics? No, dealing with those who would impose their beliefs.

    That’s a good point that I did not even realize had to be made. Nice explanation.

    The world would be a much better place without religion.

    Absolutely.

    I just saw a Christian blog go by in the cycle wherein the pinhead author reached the conclusion:

    “I need to think less and pray more.”

    Too bad they closed Jesus Camp after that movie gave them too much negative attention then, huh? That was a great place for praying and not thinking. Btw, anybody who hasn’t seen the documentary Jesus Camp should seriously watch it. It’s about an evangelical training camp for kids. Crazy-scary stuff for anyone who is not a mouth-foaming evangelical. Fair warning, though. It’s pretty depressing to see the way they brainwash those kids.

    Why does the guy in the photo at the top of the page hate juice? Is it a fruit thing?

    Heidi | Jul 18, 2009 | Reply

  233. Bobby

    Atheism can serve as the basis for or part of an ideology willing to kill just as well as any other (look up fascism, communism, & so on for examples of ideologies encouraging people to commit murder). In specific, people in Russia and Cambodia were killed for being religious when the (relatively) new government there had decided religion was not part of its accepted ideology and that those served as figures for it (in addition to practicing, teaching, and organizing it) should be killed.

    So saying nobody was killed by a “non-religious” strikes me as trying avoid facing actual history. And no, the “non-religious” doing the killing were not doing so out of defense (that religion was being imposed on them). I know the difference and you seem to be ignoring the fact that the people doing the imposing at the time were “non-religious”.

    You can say nasty things, I didn’t have a problem so much with that as with the distortion that occurs when you only say the nasty things done by members of one side and not the other-that is misrepresenting events and dishonest.

    Moreover when people do things that betray their own self professed beliefs it seems like nonsense, at best, to criticize the very beliefs they betrayed with their actions.

    Heidi

    I asked because I hadn’t heard of it when I sometimes (news reports hear about other things), besides I wasn’t sure if it was a social trend or not and why it was happening. If that was the reason in a nutshell you already have my response to the situation.

    I know missionaries are there to spread there beliefs, I have no illusions about that nor problem with it-I’ve chatted with some who want to convert me to their particular group from time to time. I was concerned about the whole making aid dependent on it situation.

    About hiding pedophiles, I live in the US and we have already had our scandals relating to that-so at least here most-if not all-of the moving around pedophiles appears to have stopped. It is unfortunate that others didn’t take what happened here as a warning and question if they had practices with terrible results.

    About religion in general some of the early scientists were religious Puritans (back when the USA didn’t exist and the eastern coast had scattered English colonies) who felt a religious obligation to study the world to better understand how God set it up natural law(s).

    If someone “discourages questioning authority and rational thinking” it strikes me as encouraging people not to “Use the brains that God gave you.”

    There are plenty of religions out there and within them many sects, groups, and so on. I tend to think of this a good thing because I want people to be able to think different things as well as come up with multiple ideas about the same subject.

    If you say religion as a whole limits rational thinking I would point out that you only are pointing to the most narrow minded groups and then assuming, wrongly, they represent the whole of religion.

    And Scientology was reportedly founded by someone who thought religion was a scam and therefore didn’t see it as a the valid practice most true believers feel it is but rather as a means to make money. I don’t care much for scam artists and I suspect Scientology is just an organized version of their activites. But I can find organized scams that have nothing, not even in name, to do with religion-in particular pyramid schemes come to mind.

    Also Bobby’s attempt to rewrite history is just one more example that proves people can try not to be rational even if they aren’t religious. So getting rid of religion hardly seems to be a protection from irrationality.

    pplr | Jul 18, 2009 | Reply

  234. I’ve encountered this sort of stubborn blindness all my life, but you take it to new heights. Fascists and Communists do not kill in support of their non-belief in your fictitious god, they killed in support of their ideology, that they were atheists is entirely unrelated. And btw, it’s not certain that they were atheists, Hitler is now thought to have been a believer based on diary entries that have been found. So I’m not “re-writing” history, I’m reporting the FACTS, something you have an extremely tenuous grasp of.

    God didn’t give anyone brains because there is no god, full stop. Until you can prove otherwise you’re just blowing it out your ass. As to the church having stopped hiding paedophiles, that’s a joke that isn’t the least bit funny. The newspapers are constantly reporting new cases. Just because you’re wearing blinders doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. The Church knows who they are and where they hid them. Until they turn them over the claim that it isn’t happening any more is just more religious lying.

    There have been no distortions here by anyone but YOU. you’re an idiot.

    bobby | Jul 18, 2009 | Reply

  235. I know missionaries are there to spread there beliefs, I have no illusions about that nor problem with it

    I do.

    some of the early scientists were religious Puritans

    Most everybody was superstitious back before we understood as much as we do now about how things work. Before Copernicus, everybody thought we were the center of the universe. Before Darwin, everybody thought we were magically put here. I don’t see how that is relevant.

    If you say religion as a whole limits rational thinking I would point out that you only are pointing to the most narrow minded groups and then assuming, wrongly, they represent the whole of religion.

    We are going to have to disagree on this, then. Because IMO, thinking rationally is completely incompatible with belief in the supernatural.

    Scientology was reportedly founded by someone who thought religion was a scam

    I believe I said that.

    I can find organized scams that have nothing, not even in name, to do with religion-in particular pyramid schemes come to mind.

    And how long does a person generally stick it out with a pyramid scheme? Right up to the point where they realize they aren’t getting all the money they were promised. Now how long do people remain Scientologists?

    Hitler is now thought to have been a believer based on diary entries that have been found.

    You don’t even need diaries. There is not one shred of evidence that points to Hitler being an atheist. OTOH, Hitler himself said:

    “I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.”

    ( Adolf Hitler, from John Toland [Pulitzer Prize winner], Adolf Hitler, New York: Anchor Publishing, 1992, p. 507. )

    and

    “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”

    ( Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Ralph Mannheim, ed., New York: Mariner Books, 1999, p. 65. )

    Also, I meant to say before that Stalin was trained at seminary. He modeled Communist Russia on religion, and in fact it is generally held that Communism *was* his (and the state’s) religion. And he quickly stamped out any competitors.

    Heidi | Jul 18, 2009 | Reply

  236. Heidi, I really admire your patience and persistence. I have no time for bullheaded stupidity myself, I just cut to the chase. Also, I had forgotten that about Stalin. At any rate, It was none other than Karl Marx, the father of communism that called religion the opiate of the masses. Indeed.

    bobby | Jul 18, 2009 | Reply

  237. Bobby,

    If you have a murderous and authoritarian ideology that says religious people should be punished, put down, and so on and you start killing them then you are killing them for being religious.

    And from what you said in your earlier comment it appears you tried to even blame the victims. That doesn’t strike me as operating out of fact, but trying to duck the very real likelihood that a group of atheists can be as murderous as any other group of people, and already have been.

    Heidi

    If you have a problem with missionaries spreading new ideas about religion then do you also have a problem scientists spreading new theories? Doctors proposing new cures for illnesses?

    I don’t because there isn’t much harmful (in itself) with suggesting new thoughts. I have a big problem with imposing new or old ideas, but the key world there is imposing. If someone wants to kill off or drive away missionaries (or people with new and different ideas in general) they are forcing people to accept the old ways of doing and thinking about things. If they force people to accept the new ideas and ways then that is also a bad thing because force is involved-again but in reverse. But giving people a choice to pick new or old strikes me as a good thing because it lets people choose. And driving away missionaries of most religions denies people the option of choosing and thus strikes me as an oppressive and, through that aspect, a bad thing.

    My point about there being religious scientists in the past (and also today-yes a good many current scientists are members of one religion or another) is that there is no inherent requirement that rationality exist separate from religion. Both can coexist and the same people can readily embrace each.

    About Hitler being Catholic, he has sometimes been referred to as a huge liar so even if he claimed to be a Catholic I wouldn’t put much stock in him actually being one. On top of that I think, if memory serves, he had a number of wives and/or lovers. Since Catholic teaching tends to frown on marrying multiple people (or sleeping with them) I have some doubts as to how deeply Catholic he was, even if he was one. And that in addition to all of the deaths Nazism is responsible for (on top of violating religious Commandments & rules against murder some people who died were Catholic).

    Since scientology was founded by someone looking to make money it is quite arguable it isn’t a real religion (whose leadership and founders are actually made of people who deeply believe in God, gods, and/or a spirit realm). There is an understandable difference between a scam posing as a religion and a religion just like there is an understandable difference between real medicine and some pills a group of people decided to put in a bottle and slap a label on with claims that it cured X (knowing it didn’t) in order to make money.

    What you seem to note about Stalin is that it is quite possible to have a militant and authoritarian ideology that embraces atheism and sees religion as a rival to be wiped out. Thus you actually agree with me that the worst things done in the name of religion (killing the non-believers, crusades, and so on) can be done in the name of an atheist ideology. Thus I was right to refer earlier to how brutally some atheists have dealt with “heretics”.

    pplr | Jul 18, 2009 | Reply

  238. @bobby: More supporting evidence.

    @pplr: I was unaware that doctors held as strong a belief in medicine as most Xtians do in Xtianity. There is a great difference between bull-headed belief in something, in which there is no proof, and belief in something which has substantial proof. Furthermore, doctors and scientists tend to change their beliefs in accordance with new proof. Where was the last religious person who did that? Oh, pardon. Most of us here, who used to be Xtian or other religions, and are now atheist, changed our beliefs in accordance with proof.

    The day there is absolute, concrete proof in a divine being, is the day I will accept and embrace organised religion.

    “Both can coexist and the same people can readily embrace each.”

    Yes, but they generally choose religion to discount responsibility for their own illogicality.

    It is probably crucial, at this point, to draw a line between organised religion and spirituality. Organised religion, as a whole, generally encourages terrible acts from their believers. Take a flick through the Old Testament, sometime. Spirituality, the belief in a personal God, is different to that. I know a non-denominational chaplain who has become completely disenchanted with ‘regular’ religion.

    blufindr | Jul 18, 2009 | Reply

  239. So blufidern, was Hitler actually a devout Catholic? I saw a photo (perhaps one part of a video) of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam, does that (on top of all the other bad things he has done or been involved with) mean he was a Baathist? I suspect we both know that answer is probably not.

    I wouldn’t be shocked if most of the people here were members of a religious group at one time or another. I have a friend that went from being a relatively lax Catholic to a devout Born Again to a more lax Born Again to a devout one again. I also have a cousin (I think that is how she fits in the family tree) who was born Catholic, stopped practicing any religion, and then became an Orthodox Jew. People can and have changed their beliefs. I figure it sometimes happens by how best they see things at a given time.

    About evidence, there are accounts of and thus an argument for there being a Jesus Christ and so on. As far as I know neither you nor I were around at the time he is said to have walked the Earth performing miracles and giving talks. Thus while I cannot prove to you that Jesus Christ existed or did the things he is claimed to have done I can say there is evidence I didn’t get up one morning and just make up Christianity.

    Moreover there isn’t proof that Jesus didn’t exist. There aren’t (as far as I know) videos from that time period showing something else going than what was claimed.

    So all that exists as far as I can prove to anyone online here this moment or they to me is there is an argument. Proof, or rather the lack of it, is a hinderance to each side of the discussion as presented by each person here to others as far as seen at the moment. If I had a form of proof that I knew of right now and could type it in through the keyboard I would. I apologize if it exists and I missed it, but perhaps that is why religion is viewed by some as a personal decision.

    In spite of all the claims for desire of proof, logic, and rationality by the people saying there is no God (or gods for that matter) they have no proof either. So arguments that atheism is accurate are guesses to at least some degree, correct?

    Blufinder, I give you credit for saying you would change your mind if you saw proof that there is a God (or gods depending on the religion thought of). We may have to settle tonight without being able to prove to each other that our best guess is accurate, or that our beliefs are true.

    Some of the atheists here have stuck me as being emotionally attached to the idea that religion is bad and atheism is therefore more moral. In specific I’m thinking of Bobby not wanting to admit that horrible things can and have been done in the name of atheism as readily as I can admit they were done in the name of religion. So that struck a cord with me along the same lines as when I first posted after looking at the list (and reading into it the implication that atheists haven’t done bad things).

    If a doctor is active in a religion (goes to a church every Sunday, is in the choir, donates, and so on) it is probably pretty easy to argue he is actively a Christian (or pick a different type of worship area for other religions but with the same point). If he studies medicine and does what he learns to cure or treat patients he is actively practicing medicine. If he actively does both then I would say he expects each to work however he believes it should or does. That may be different from a fanatic as we both may see one, but doctors do make very important (life or death sometimes) decisions based on what they believe to be true. A religious fanatic, for better or worse in terms of the rest of humanity, sometimes does too.

    I totally support the idea of and option for people having their own personal spirituality. I think there is a lot to it, however it is different from atheism. But, thank you for bringing up the point.

    While horrors of many of the actions of/by organized religions should be seen for just how sad and terrible they are. Organized religion also can and does have its good points that would be hard for one individual to accomplish alone. Figures of the same Roman Catholic Church that burned books at one time also preserved copies of books and built libraries in another. The same organization that called for crusades where many people were killed and abused also built hospitals to save lives and organizations that have aided the poor and starving. Christian and Muslim leaders have been responsible for wars and the death of many people, yet they can also be responsible for ending one (as in the case of the recent civil war in southern Sudan). Organized religion has a mixed bag IMO.

    pplr | Jul 18, 2009 | Reply

  240. @pplr

    The fact that Hitler was a Roman Catholic is unquestionable. Why did he go after the Jews? They are the “Christ killers” He blamed them for all the corruption in the world because in the NT of the bible jews are depicted as corrupt. Mein kempf, the book where Hitler wrote out his beliefs and ideologies, and reasons for them, refer to the bible for many of his horrible acts.

    As for not being a good christian because he killed so many people, I guess no European who fought in the crusades was a good christian either while they were out there killing in the name of Christ.

    Also, I’m not positive on this one, but I do not recall Hitler having been married. The only woman I have ever heard about him having as a wife/mistress/whatever was the one he died with down in his bunker (can’t think of her name right now, just got off work and I’m a bit tired)

    As for some of the people dying being catholic, there is no argument there. He killed anyone who showed any stand against his state. He did not kill catholics for being catholic. He killed jews for being jews, gays for being gays, he killed any non christian for not believing in his god.

    As for proof that Christ did not exist, there is always the fact that Bethlehem, his birthplace, was founded about 300 years after he was born. I guess since he was all powerful he just used time travel to manage that one.

    WWM | Jul 18, 2009 | Reply

  241. @pplr: I’ve done you the courtesy of spelling your (albeit short) screen-name correctly. Please try to return the favour. It’s difficult enough to take your argument seriously.

    I never said he was devout. Simply that he was a Xtian, and used his beliefs to fuel his hatred.

    Scroll up. There has been argument over the existence of Jesus etc. There’s greater evidence that the character of Jesus is a conglomeration of a number of lesser prophets and do-gooders, than there is that Jesus was a singular being.

    I know you didn’t “wake up one morning and just make up Xtianity”. This does not mean that someone else didn’t.

    You know what? You Xtians are the ones that claim existence of a God and the like. You bring the (irrefutable) proof. In our legal systems (nay, in every system we have), the burden of proof lies on the side that claims existence.

    I do not speak for every atheist, but I personally do not believe in God because there is no proof for him. Granted, there is no proof he doesn’t exist, either. But I’m not claiming definitively that he doesn’t exist. Simply that with the current evidence, it seems highly unlikely.

    Atheists have done bad things. This is not at all being refuted by anyone here. Atheists, however, do not kill or maim people out of the belief that our no-God is better than their God. Believe otherwise? Bring some proof to the party.

    “If a doctor [...] sometimes does too.”

    There is a difference between faith in the unknown, and faith in science. Science changes, to accommodate new information, theories and beliefs. Religion has not done so since slavery was moral.

    “Figures of the same Roman Catholic Church that burned books at one time also preserved copies of books and built libraries in another.”

    They burned books that opposed their teachings, and preserved ones that supported their beliefs. That, to me, reeks of suppression.

    @WWM: From Wikipedia:

    “He had a fiancée in the 1920s, Mimi Reiter, and later had a mistress, Eva Braun. He had a close bond with his half-niece Geli Raubal, which some commentators have claimed was sexual, though there is no evidence that proves this.”

    blufindr | Jul 18, 2009 | Reply

  242. Heidi, I really admire your patience and persistence. I have no time for bullheaded stupidity myself, I just cut to the chase.

    Sometimes I do, too. But really, getting mad at them just makes them whine about how irrational and angry we are.

    If you have a problem with missionaries spreading new ideas about religion then do you also have a problem scientists spreading new theories? Doctors proposing new cures for illnesses?

    You’re comparing apples and oranges. Scientists have empirical evidence to back up their “claims.” Religion doesn’t. Now if a doctor (or anyone else) was pushing untested, unverified supernatural healing, you bet I’d have a problem with it.

    a good many current scientists are members of one religion or another

    Well now that depends on their discipline, doesn’t it? Are you including social scientists like sociologists? Or are we talking about quantum physicists? I certainly would not trust the conclusions of a physicist who believes in magic and gods.

    About Hitler being Catholic, he has sometimes been referred to as a huge liar so even if he claimed to be a Catholic I wouldn’t put much stock in him actually being one. On top of that I think, if memory serves, he had a number of wives and/or lovers.

    Oh, ok. No matter how many times he said he was Catholic, or said he thought he was doing the lord’s work, he was lying. And no matter how desperately he was searching for artifacts of Christian mysticism, he was just faking it. Sure. None of which is the least bit relevant anyway, because whether he believed it or not Hitler was using religion to justify his actions. And this is what we are talking about here. Also, he was fully supported by the Catholic church, and none of the Nazi war criminals have ever been excommunicated. But it took until 1992 for them to pardon Galileo for thinking.

    Also, Hitler was never married, so memory doesn’t serve. Unless “a number of” means a fiancee in the 20s and a mistress in the 40s. He had no other known relationships.

    Since scientology was founded by someone looking to make money it is quite arguable it isn’t a real religion (whose leadership and founders are actually made of people who deeply believe in God, gods, and/or a spirit realm).

    Look up Joseph Smith and see why he founded Mormonism. He was a convicted con man. How do you know that religions founded 2000+ years ago weren’t invented for the same reason? The practice of tithing a percentage of your income comes to mind.

    What you seem to note about Stalin

    Is not what I actually said. But then you knew that. What I said was, he saw other religions as a rival to his communist religion.

    So blufidern, was Hitler actually a devout Catholic? I saw a photo (perhaps one part of a video) of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam, does that (on top of all the other bad things he has done or been involved with) mean he was a Baathist?

    It would if he’d gone around insisting that he was one.

    “We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.”

    ( Adolf Hitler, in a speech delivered in Berlin, October 24, 1933. )

    and

    “And now Staatspräsident Bolz says that Christianity and the Catholic faith are threatened by us. And to that charge I can answer: In the first place it is Christians and not international atheists who now stand at the head of Germany. I do not merely talk of Christianity, no, I also profess that I will never ally myself with the parties which destroy Christianity. If many wish today to take threatened Christianity under their protection, where, I would ask, was Christianity for them in these fourteen years when they went arm in arm with atheism? No, never and at no time was greater internal damage done to Christianity than in these fourteen years when a party, theoretically Christian, sat with those who denied God in one and the same Government.”

    ( Adolf Hitler, in a speech delivered at Stuttgart, February 15, 1933. )

    also

    “Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.”

    ( Adolf Hitler, in 26 April 1933, from a speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordant of 1933. )

    You want me to keep going with those? I’ve got plenty more.

    I wouldn’t be shocked if most of the people here were members of a religious group at one time or another.

    Irrelevant.

    About evidence, there are accounts of and thus an argument for there being a Jesus Christ and so on.

    Existence does not make him the son of a god.

    I can say there is evidence I didn’t get up one morning and just make up Christianity.

    I can say there is evidence that Tom Cruise didn’t get up one morning and just make up Scientology.

    Proof, or rather the lack of it, is a hinderance to each side of the discussion as presented by each person here

    No, lack of proof only applies to the supernatural claim. I can’t prove there are no mermaids or unicorns, either. Do you believe in those, too?

    In spite of all the claims for desire of proof, logic, and rationality by the people saying there is no God (or gods for that matter) they have no proof either.

    See above.

    So arguments that atheism is accurate are guesses to at least some degree, correct?

    No, not correct. You clearly misunderstand the definition of atheism. Atheism = “I see no evidence that leads me to believe in gods.” How can that possibly be inaccurate? Do you have some evidence? Oh, wait. No you don’t:

    If I had a form of proof that I knew of right now and could type it in through the keyboard I would

    Which is the problem.

    Some of the atheists here have stuck me as being emotionally attached to the idea that religion is bad

    It is.

    and atheism is therefore more moral.

    Again, you misunderstand atheism. See above. The only thing that has been claimed is that atheists to do commit heinous acts and then justify them with supernatural god claims.

    Heidi | Jul 18, 2009 | Reply

  243. @WWM: Eva Braun.

    Heidi | Jul 18, 2009 | Reply

  244. Wow, I’m away a few hours and come to find you folks still engaging with this idiot. Anyway, as with all of these superstitious pinheads the comments are getting further and further from reality, which is why I never take it too far with them. They have no new arguments to present, it’s the same tired crap over and over. Just as they can’t see beyond their dogma, they can’t come up with anything new to debate with. Pathetic.

    bobby | Jul 19, 2009 | Reply

  245. @bobby: Do you think this one’s just had a little bit much of religion? It being “opiate of the masses” and all.

    blufindr | Jul 19, 2009 | Reply

  246. You may be right. Tell you what, I’ll bet they’ve heard all the stuff we’ve been saying before and they’re just coming in to wind us up with they’re usual crap. I was saying to my wife earlier, why is it that atheists aren’t threatened by the superstitious blathering on about they’re gods, but when you tell them you don’t believe in a god they get all hot and bothered?

    Have you ever read The Book: On The Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are ? It’s by Alan Watts. Essentially it’s about the nature of existence, but there’s a passage where he talks about the religious and he postulates that they prosthelitize because there is a seed of doubt in their minds due to the fact that there’s no evidence for a creator, and the more people they can get to believe as they do, the less nagging doubt they have that they’re wrong.

    I think that answers my question. Atheists don’t have that doubt, because all they’re saying is there is no evidence for god. Therefore it doesn’t rattle an atheist to have someone say they believe in one.

    bobby | Jul 19, 2009 | Reply

  247. Well christ on a stick, how in the hell did I keep saying they’re when I meant their? You don’t suppose all this exposure to the idiot is rotting my brain…hmmm…

    bobby | Jul 19, 2009 | Reply

  248. @bobby: It’s the pack mentality. “He believes in it too, therefore, I’m right and you’re wrong”. They’ve done a lot of studies to show that people do tend to change their beliefs in order to fit in with the perceived status quo.

    You might be right, too. Idiocy does seem to be contagious. :P

    blufindr | Jul 19, 2009 | Reply

  249. I just saw the twit’s comment about me not being able to admit that bad things have been done in the name of atheism. Is there one shred of evidence to support that contention? I’m not aware that atheists at any time in history have banded together in the name of atheism and killed people. I would love to see the evidence, because this idiot must have some if they keep saying it’s true. Otherwise they’re even stupider than I imagined. I carefully explained that the communists and the fascists did what they did in the name of their ideologies, but that doesn’t seem to have sunk in. This one is stupider than most!

    bobby | Jul 19, 2009 | Reply

  250. They have no new arguments to present, it’s the same tired crap over and over.

    I think there’s a fine for deviating from the script.

    there’s a passage where he talks about the religious and he postulates that they prosthelitize because there is a seed of doubt in their minds due to the fact that there’s no evidence for a creator, and the more people they can get to believe as they do, the less nagging doubt they have that they’re wrong.

    I have long suspected that to be true, or at least very nearly true in a large number of cases. They don’t really believe, and they’re clinging to the wreckage of their gods as if they were flotsam.

    Heidi | Jul 19, 2009 | Reply

  251. My wife believes that for some of them it’s necessary to keep them from going off the rails. She’s had people say to her, “well, if you don’t believe in god, what keeps you from killing?” And they’re serious. So it’s not that there isn’t any silver lining in the cloud of superstition…

    bobby | Jul 19, 2009 | Reply

  252. @bobby: Conversely, those same people are the first to point fingers at supposedly immoral atheists. I asked a Xtian woman who was denouncing atheism the other day, why she’d do that. She replied with “well, you don’t have a God to tell you to be good. That means you don’t have any kind of moral guidance! That means you’re going to go to hell!” I pointed out that I, as an atheist, have never discriminated against a whole group of people as she was doing. She replied with a slap. With really long, acrylic nails, too.

    blufindr | Jul 19, 2009 | Reply

  253. @blufindr: You said, “I don’t think it’s religion itself that’s to blame, though. I mean, aside from the fact that it inherently encourages believers to absorb “facts” that hold no logic whatsoever, it’s innocuous enough.”

    Here’s a quote I think you might like:

    “Once you can believe one impossible thing, you can believe any impossible thing.” – Nenslo

    I think that describes the danger of religion, in a nutshell.

    SpamBurglar | Jul 19, 2009 | Reply

  254. @SpamBurglar: Aha, that’s great! I also love your screenname, by the way.

    blufindr | Jul 19, 2009 | Reply

  255. I just gotta say that it’s hilarious to me how poorly the religious argue this debate. They use false information, misguided or sometimes purposefully twisted quotes, and all too often they seem to blindly stumble forward through the discussion unable to give any firm argument above the level of “I’m right and you’re wrong”

    Yet I know a few xtians who are great debaters on other matters… really goes to show how little they have to argue with on this subject.

    also, it’s kinda amusing that the vast majority of Xtians do not know the bible nearly as well as your average Atheist. I think it’s because any sane person who actually reads the bible word for word, cover to cover, cannot rationally agree with it. That’s how I became an atheist. I was actually reading the bible to better understand it so I could argue FOR religion better. There were just too many contradictions and things that just totally disgusted me.

    Tell a christian to finish “thou shalt not covet” and they will always answer “they neighbor’s wife” leaving out the fact that wife is just one item in a list of property. Or how about the “rules of slavery” including that only a jew may ever be freed from slavery. the list goes on and on…

    WWM | Jul 19, 2009 | Reply

  256. @WWM:

    “Or how about the “rules of slavery” including that only a jew may ever be freed from slavery.”

    Uh-oh! Better tell Lincoln he never freed the slaves after all.

    blufindr | Jul 19, 2009 | Reply

  257. I guess the south can put all those african “imigrants” back to work huh?

    WWM | Jul 19, 2009 | Reply

  258. @bobby: Indeed, indeed. Especially in the recession and all. I mean, it’s too much work for people like us. Better set some slaves on it.

    blufindr | Jul 19, 2009 | Reply

  259. An interpretation of the Bible, which correlates the early chapters of Genesis closer to current scientific theories has been released. Click.

    blufindr | Jul 19, 2009 | Reply

  260. I got to wondering what percentage of the prison population in the U.S., since that’s the most rabidly Christian country there is, identify as Christians as opposed to those who identify as atheists. I found this:

    http://www.skepticfiles.org/american/prison.htm

    This guy makes the argument that 1% of the prison population is atheist, though others claim it to be as high as 20%, but even if that were true, only 20%? So there are far more Christians in prison than atheists. Imagine that.

    bobby | Jul 19, 2009 | Reply

  261. @SpamBurglar: Great quote. That is exactly the problem.

    This guy makes the argument that 1% of the prison population is atheist, though others claim it to be as high as 20%, but even if that were true, only 20%? So there are far more Christians in prison than atheists. Imagine that.

    I seriously doubt the 20% figure. Prisons actively encourage religion. There are bibles, korans, etc. all over the place in prisons. They have visiting proselytizers. They have meeting groups for any kind of religion you can imagine. Not just the largely practiced ones, but things like Native American circles. Why? Because it keeps them distracted from causing trouble.

    They also have things like group gardens, weight lifting gyms, and bands where they can play an instrument. Depending on the class/type of offenders in a facility, they also allow Dungeons and Dragons groups. Amusingly enough, they disallow D&D at treatment centers where they think it will encourage delusional fantasy-thinking. And yet they still allow religion. I’ve never met anyone who actually thought D&D was real. And the only story I’ve heard of such a person was that hoax about the kid who supposedly killed himself over it. Surprise, he’s not even dead. He ran away from home. lol.

    Heidi | Jul 19, 2009 | Reply

  262. Ok, that wasn’t all supposed to be bolded. So much for html tags at 8:00 am. lol.

    Heidi | Jul 19, 2009 | Reply

  263. And yet, they complain so hard when we promote atheism.

    Can anyone else say “hypocritical thinking”?

    blufindr | Jul 19, 2009 | Reply

  264. I headed out after my last comment to blufinder and returned to see a couple of new comments/replies to what I said. I fell asleep shortly after typing a reply but before I sent it. Here is what I said (modified slightly and given a look over for typos).

    Also when I first mentioned ideologies that encourage or call for people to kill it was part of simply showing that people have been willing to kill for an ideology. That was it. I never claimed Hitler was an atheist but that lead to an interesting discussion about Hitler so I followed along with it. As a good number of Nazis claimed to be some variety of Christian or Neo-pagan I would be willing to agree Nazism wasn’t an atheist movement. I am pretty sure a great many of the people who followed it engaged in what Christianity views as sinning.

    Though I didn’t claim Nazism was an atheist movement that called on its members to kill (and perhaps should have to avoid any confusion that lead to an unnecessary but not uninteresting discussion of Hitler) it would be fair for me to say that Communism is a movement does embrace atheism and has been used call for the killing of a pretty large number of people. So it is factually impossible for atheists to claim that at least some of the movements/groups that have embraced atheism haven’t been brutal.

    Now to what I said typed last night.

    WWM

    I heard that he had a number of lovers. Granted was truly “heard” so it could be wrong. Unfortunately, it may be harder to find out that a quick search because while I’ve already started to look for commentary on his romantic/sex life online most of what I find relates to his political activities for understandable reasons-and some of what I did find on line included claims he was secretly gay (first I’ve heard about that theory). I could be wrong about that one. Heidi already pointed out he married Eva Braun.

    The argument that Jews are Christ-killers is nonsensical in that Jesus Christ and his very early followers were Jewish. He did have some pretty harsh things to say about some Jewish religious officials but my understanding of early Christianity is that it didn’t think of itself as separate from being Jewish. The idea of Jews as Christ-killers was adopted by a good number Christians and you are quite right to think about the anti-semitic bigotry in Europe that existed for a long time prior to Hitler. However, the idea that Jews are Christ killers is highly questionable in Biblical terms according to my understanding of the New Testament-and probably would have been for a good number of the Jews who made up very early Christianity as well.

    That is a relatively new comment (for me) about Bethlehem so I’ll have to see what I can find one way or another about it.

    Sorry blufinder, didn’t realize I got the name wrong the 1st time, I did get it right the 2nd. I look for typos but sometimes a few still get through. I wouldn’t use any you may make to ignore a point you bring up so it isn’t unfair of me to request that you do likewise.

    About proof, you cannot prove your point but act like that is irrelevant because of how the legal system works…? This strikes me as not being able to win an debate by using the same rules as the other person and thus trying to change them to so your own argument doesn’t have to be judged equally.

    As for someone denying atheists have done bad things I’ll refer you to Bobby trying to claim that the priests and monks I mentioned earlier were killed because they were religious people trying to impose their beliefs on others. That struck me as trying to blame the victim as well as justify their murder (murder is generally the case when a group of armed individuals kills a group of unarmed individuals who aren’t trying to hurt anyone and haven’t been at time they are killed or leading up to it). Heidi knew what I was talking about and didn’t try to excuse it (she mentioned Pol Pot in relation to the monks killed in Cambodia and may have tried to downplay it by pointing out it wasn’t happening anymore but she didn’t initially claim what had happened somehow wasn’t a bad thing). So I think it can readily be said Bobby tried to deny atheists did a bad thing when they did.

    About slavery being “moral”, I actually have met a real religiously believing person who tried to argue that it was (so I know there are a few out there that actually still exist) with me. My direct response was to point out the immorality of the actions required to maintain it. However there is also the argument that slavery was actually a broadly accepted practice at time Christianity was first growing and that it advocated treating slaves better, thereby promoting humane treatment of others (not something the image a slavery lends itself to). Thus while the there is an argument that slavery is Biblical I would say this goes against the spirit of the Bible’s teachings (like using the letter of a law to undermine its spirit/intent). That spirit being to treat people better rather than worse.

    Also I see religious understandings growing and changing even to this day (if you think that slavery being declared immoral was the last time theology has made a positive change/evolution I doubt you’ve been paying attention). There has been Vatican support (hardly viewed as the edge of progressive theology) for the dignity of workers (including fair treatment thereof) for a number of years now. Granted “abuse the poor” was never a Catholic motto, but the statement about workers’ dignity seems relevant today as well as the past. Some Evangelicals (the Vatican has already signed on to this one as well) are trying to push their religious fellows to acknowledge the immorality of causing Global Warming (granted this is a minority group but it didn’t exist before and I only wish for its success and growth). Global Warming is a pretty modern, post-slavery, problem. Also there is the debate over gay rights. While it is disheartening to see the majority of religious Christians and Muslims opposing equal treatment for gay people there are serious efforts by some religious people to treat gay people fairly and point out the immortality of not doing so. In particular the Anglican (though a few other Protestant groups are going through internal debates/struggles as well) part of Christianity is having internal disagreements over this very issue. So to say nothing has happened since theology woke up about slavery is to ignore the current struggles for change.

    Burning books is suppression. But I didn’t say only ones that supported Catholicism were preserved-you added that and I think you’re wrong to do so. St. Isidore helped to expand knowledge of/from Aristotle-who is not known of as being a Catholic writer. You seemed a bit quick just there to assume the worst when it comes to what religion has done even if the assumption is inaccurate.

    Heidi

    Some atheists can be irrational and are “angry”. Would you be as willing to point out when a fellow atheist says something irrational as you are to accept and give praise to a fellow atheist? There is a difference between standing for rationality and cheering for compatriots.

    Correct me if I’m wrong but don’t a decent number of scientists share ideas before they have proof that the idea is correct, more pointedly isn’t part of the process of sharing sometimes an important part of proving or disproving an idea (allowing others to test it and verify it or at least to try to create a method of doing so). Also theology is one of the few things that most people (discounting some who may have their bodies frozen/preserved for a hoped revival) will eventually put to the test. If there is an afterlife along any of the variations some religions state or not will be tested by each of us. Granted, it may be hard to share results post the death of one’s physical body but the theology will be tested by us all sooner or later (and I suspect a majority of us prefer later).

    I would guess (as would you) that there aren’t mermaids or unicorns. But I would admit that there is the possibility (very very very very small) I am wrong because no individual has proven it they don’t exist. I would guess that there are a the greater number of people who claim to have had religious experiences than claim to have seen a unicorn. As weak a form of evidence as personal accounts can be the larger number of them religions beings or events as opposed to unicorns provides a suggestion that religion of some sort is more likely to be true than unicorns. And the implication of comparing religious understandings to belief in unicorns is to demean the former by saying it is as likely to be true as unicorns existing (only with the latter topic is there widespread agreement between non-believers and believers, something most atheists know when they bring up the comparison). Now if you weren’t subtly trying to imply that the religious beliefs a great many people follow are the equivalent of what many of those same people generally think of as non-existent fantasy creatures I’ll take that back (in your case) and admit that I sometimes read too much into a comment.

    Also the definition you gave of atheism seems to be weaker than many would describe. Most pointedly it seems more like agnosticism where the idea there is a God hasn’t been proven and is therefore considered unknown. The response I’ve gotten from an atheist I’ve met in person is that she doesn’t believe there is a God (or gods) period, not just that there is a lack of evidence. There is a difference between the assertion there is no God and that there isn’t evidence for God.

    Now you put forward that statement religion is bad. Does that imply you think religion is a lie and therefore bad because it is supposedly a deception. If you think that then you have stepped beyond your claim that you simply feel there is no evidence for God to an outright belief that God doesn’t exist. And if you are arguing religion is bad then considering that when I first commented here it was specifically about the fact that I felt the list on this website was both one-sided and improperly used events to complain about religion (including when a religion’s dictates weren’t even followed) makes me wonder if you actually gave religion a fair hearing before you decided it was bad.

    Many people have been killed in the name of religion. But other people’s lives have been saved by religion. The feeling I get is that even if we could count up the number of people saved vs killed or helped vs hindered by religion (and I doubt any one of us typing here today or last night actually knows the current number for each total) there are people here, possibly yourself included, who wouldn’t bother to look at the positive/helpful number but only the negative/harmful one. That is a guess on my part but given the half-truths I have already pointed to in relation the list and your statement that religion is flat out bad I’m guessing I’m not far from the mark. If I’m wrong with that guess then please feel free to tell me how so.

    pplr | Jul 19, 2009 | Reply

  265. Ah a typo slipped through:

    Now to what I said typed last night should be “Now to what I said/typed last night.” For anyone that matters to.

    pplr | Jul 19, 2009 | Reply

  266. Heidi, I was just passing over that last few comments and noticed one implying that religion is “impossible”.

    The shows one of your fellow atheists here, SpamBurglar, truly believing there is not God (and implying that there cannot be a God with his quote) rather than simply making the claim that there isn’t evidence for God.

    And Blufinder supported it.

    So I’m going to hazard to say that my understanding of atheism as a belief there is no God is more accurate than the definition of it you gave (which claimed it was simply about evidence). And that is evidenced by some of the recent comments here.

    pplr | Jul 19, 2009 | Reply

  267. So it is factually impossible for atheists to claim that at least some of the movements/groups that have embraced atheism haven’t been brutal.

    Sigh. You are either continually missing or willfully ignoring the point that things done in the name of communism were NOT done in the name of atheism. If a Catholic person shoots your dog because he hates dogs, it is not religiously motivated. He did not read “thou shalt shoot dogs.” He probably did not believe your dog was a sinner. He’s just an ass.

    Heidi already pointed out he married Eva Braun.

    I did not. And he did not. She was his mistress during WWII and at the time of his death. Hitler was never married.

    The argument that Jews are Christ-killers is nonsensical in that Jesus Christ and his very early followers were Jewish.

    Irrelevant. It was his excuse. Whether or not you or I (or Mel Gibson) agree with him is beside the point. I feel like you’re really not getting that, and I’m a bit tired of reiterating the same point.

    Some atheists can be irrational and are “angry”. Would you be as willing to point out when a fellow atheist says something irrational as you are to accept and give praise to a fellow atheist?

    Um, what? When did I say that no atheist was every angry or irrational? Sometimes I’m angry and irrational, and I’m an atheist. So there’s that invalidated. But I like to think that overall I am not an angry or irrational person, which is how most theists would like to describe all atheists who are not accommodationists.

    Correct me if I’m wrong but don’t a decent number of scientists share ideas before they have proof that the idea is correct, more pointedly isn’t part of the process of sharing sometimes an important part of proving or disproving an idea (allowing others to test it and verify it or at least to try to create a method of doing so).

    The whole point of science is to challenge everything we think we know. But no legitimate scientist puts something forward as fact unless it can be proven with empirical evidence.

    Granted, it may be hard to share results post the death of one’s physical body but the theology will be tested by us all sooner or later (and I suspect a majority of us prefer later).

    If you pay me $500,000 I will come to your house after the revelation and take care of your pets. I promise. You can test me on it after it happens.

    I would guess (as would you) that there aren’t mermaids or unicorns. But I would admit that there is the possibility (very very very very small) I am wrong

    But because there is no evidence that they exist, you live your life under the presumption that they don’t. Congratulations. You are an a-unicornist and an a-mermaidist. When you understand that, you will understand the atheist point of view.

    I would guess that there are a the greater number of people who claim to have had religious experiences than claim to have seen a unicorn.

    Logical fallacy. Appeal to Popularity. A whole lot of people believe in aliens, too. Do you?

    Now if you weren’t subtly trying to imply that the religious beliefs a great many people follow are the equivalent of what many of those same people generally think of as non-existent fantasy creatures

    Oh I wasn’t subtly trying to imply anything. I’m outright saying it. Religious beliefs are as ridiculous as aliens, mermaids, and thinking you’re Napoleon. And I have no problem with demeaning them. I do not see any need to respect other people’s delusions. Regardless of the number of people affected by them. (see logical fallacy: appeal to popularity above) A whole lot of people believed in Thor and Zeus, too.

    Also the definition you gave of atheism seems to be weaker than many would describe.

    Many of whom? Many religious people? Do you have statistics, or are you just saying that because it sounds good?

    As for the definition of atheism, look it up. Or see Dawkins’ Belief Scale. As he says in The God Delusion, there are many people in category 1, but very, very few in category 7. I am agnostic about gods to the same degree that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of my garden.

    If there is ever empirical proof to the contrary, I will revise my opinion. However, this does NOT mean that there are any circumstances under which I would become a Christian. There are not. If the bible is proven to my satisfaction to be the inerrant word of a god, I will concede the god’s existence and demand that it explain itself for murdering all those Egyptian firstborn children.

    Now you put forward that statement religion is bad.

    Correct. Extolling belief without evidence as a virtue is bad. I believe I’ve already said that several times.

    The feeling I get is that even if we could count up the number of people saved vs killed or helped vs hindered by religion (and I doubt any one of us typing here today or last night actually knows the current number for each total) there are people here, possibly yourself included, who wouldn’t bother to look at the positive/helpful number but only the negative/harmful one. That is a guess on my part but given the half-truths I have already pointed to in relation the list and your statement that religion is flat out bad I’m guessing I’m not far from the mark. If I’m wrong with that guess then please feel free to tell me how so.

    Um, what? I have no idea what you’re asking. If you want to know whether I think religion has a net negative impact on society, then the answer is yes, I do. And I would venture to guess that many of the things you consider to be “good,” are things I would not consider to be “good.” Mother Theresa comes to mind. I am not a fan. (No, I really don’t want to get into an argument about the merits of MT.)

    I don’t know what half-truths you think you’ve pointed out, as the vast majority of your arguments consist of misdirection and logical fallacy (e.g. non-sequiturs).

    Heidi | Jul 19, 2009 | Reply

  268. Heidi, I was just passing over that last few comments and noticed one implying that religion is “impossible”.

    Click the Dawkins link. Very few people are in category 7.

    And Blufinder supported it.

    She also said:

    The day there is absolute, concrete proof in a divine being, is the day I will accept and embrace organised religion.

    I assume you missed that bit.

    Heidi | Jul 19, 2009 | Reply

  269. Hey, I’m still waiting for the evidence that atheists have banded together at some point in history and committed atrocities in the name of atheism. Funny how that’s suddenly forgotten, eh?

    Folks, you’re being jerked around here. Your strings are being pulled by a buffoon. Not a good look.

    bobby | Jul 19, 2009 | Reply

  270. Hey, I’m still waiting for the evidence that atheists have banded together at some point in history and committed atrocities in the name of atheism. Funny how that’s suddenly forgotten, eh?

    Folks, you’re being jerked around here. Your strings are being pulled by a buffoon. Not a good look.

    bobby | Jul 19, 2009

    Ans -Stalin

    wbr | Jul 19, 2009 | Reply

  271. Wrong. Russian communism was actually a form of religion. Stalin originally studied to become a priest but abandoned his faith after reading Origin of the Species. His brand of communism was very anti-science and was a quasi-religious organization. He never did anything in the name of atheism, he did it all in the name of his new religion, communism. When you idiot christians quit telling this lie?

    bobby | Jul 19, 2009 | Reply

  272. @bobby How many times do you think we have to repeat that? I’m getting bored.

    Heidi | Jul 19, 2009 | Reply

  273. That’s why I say we’re being jerked around. That may have been a new idiot who said that, or it may be the same idiot using another identity.

    bobby | Jul 19, 2009 | Reply

  274. Probably so. I’m just practicing the not-rising-to-the-bait when they’re button-pushing tactic. But I have a bit of ADD, so my patience is not infinite. lol.

    Heidi | Jul 19, 2009 | Reply

  275. @pplr: Yo. I already posted before about his fiancee, mistress (Eva Braun; he never married her) and supposedly sexual relationship with his niece. Scroll up.

    ::sigh:: No e. Seriously, if you’re unsure, please check. It’s really, really fucking irritating. Pardon the French, truly I am in a rotten mood. But getting someone’s name is a courtesy I was brought up to have.

    I do not claim anything either way on the existence of God. Just that I do not believe, because there is a severe lack of evidence. It is the legal equivalent of a jury acquitting because there is insufficient proof to convict. I do not see how God’s existence should be accepted without proof. You don’t believe in Zeus, and other such Gods. Neither do I. I just believe in one less God than you.

    Come to think of it, the following quote by Richard Dawkins sums things up nicely:

    “We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”

    Show me some passages in the Bible that say anything about treating slaves fairly.

    Indeed, it [the Bible] would be reflective of societal views at the time of writing. That is to be expected. But almost all teachings of that kind in the Bible are, today, considered moot (see previous post about things forbidden by the Bible). Extrapolating from that, doesn’t it mean that a lot of anti-gay, anti-prophylactic and misogynistic teachings are also out of date? Almost certainly. And yet, the Pope has repeatedly spouted anti-abortion (almost certainly a misogynistic teaching), anti–condom usage in HIV-infected countries, and anti–gay marriage drivel.

    Funnily enough, the “struggle for change” has done nothing to help equality between the sexes. Show me a woman in Xtian power. Any kind of power, even remotely equivalent to what men can garner (not including nuns. I’m talking of bishops, carmelengos (sp?) and the like).

    They [the Church] protected anything that didn’t go against their views, and got rid of everything that did. That still reeks of oppression to me.

    Theology has been weighed, measured, and found wanting by a lot of people. The afterlife, the supposed tunnel of light, has been attributed to signals given off by the brain as it shuts down.

    Something is more likely to be true if the number of people claiming its existence is high? Sweet, let’s recruit more atheists. Your demeaning unicorns is actually rather insulting. Truly.* What is so different about unicorns, that they’re somehow ‘lesser’ than your imaginary friend? What widespread agreement are you talking of? I’m quite sure Heidi was implying exactly what you said; and I agree with her. If you people can believe in an omnipotent being who is somehow both omnibenevolent and bitchy enough to cast us into hell for disbelief, I can believe in fairies and unicorns. There is equal enough proof in each.

    *: I’m more likely to believe in a horse with an extra boned structure than I am to believe in an all-powerful being. Sorry.

    @Heidi: I, too, have a touch of ADD. And a lot of depression. Add a short fuse, and you have an atheist bomb. I’m just waiting for the day I lose my temper and unleash my potty mouth on this guy. :P

    blufindr | Jul 19, 2009 | Reply

  276. The best part is that unicorns are IN the bible.

    From anwersingenesis.org, a decidedly Christian site:
    Some people claim the Bible is a book of fairy tales because it mentions unicorns. However, the biblical unicorn was a real animal, not an imaginary creature. The Bible refers to the unicorn in the context of familiar animals, such as peacocks, lambs, lions, bullocks, goats, donkeys, horses, dogs, eagles, and calves (Job 39:9–12.1) In Job 38–41, God reminded Job of the characteristics of a variety of impressive animals He had created, showing Job that God was far above man in power and strength.2

    Oh, ok. Bible unicorns are real, then.

    Heidi | Jul 19, 2009 | Reply

  277. “Sigh. You are either continually missing or willfully ignoring the point that things done in the name of communism were NOT done in the name of atheism. If a Catholic person shoots your dog because he hates dogs, it is not religiously motivated. He did not read “thou shalt shoot dogs.” He probably did not believe your dog was a sinner. He’s just an ass.”

    Communism was a generally atheist movement that actively opposed religion. Not all atheists are communist but that doesn’t mean that communism somehow wasn’t atheist and did act via a particular atheist understanding of the world. You’re right that someone can just be an ass, but there is a difference between one person and the policy (and underlying ideological reasoning) of a movement and/or nation-state.

    I would expect a Catholic person to acknowledge something about the Crusades as part of Catholic history. They were called for by a Catholic religious official (the Pope). The Inquisition in my mind as similar for that reason. We could debate about if Catholic rules/orthodoxy was violated but the presence of high level religious officials calling for/organizing each. Neither would likely be a pleasant/joyous thing for a Catholics to think about and not something I’d claim any individual Catholic alive today is responsible for. But each should be mentioned within Catholic history because they belong there.

    Communist Russia viewed religion as BS so that would likely give it an 7 on the Dawkins chart you brought up (maybe more on that latter). Dictatorships have come and gone in various nations without declaring religion itself a problem. Russia didn’t in this case, you are correct and reasonable to say that desire for greater control in general served as a motivational force for disrupting and suppressing religion. But to ignore the atheist nature of Russian government of the time and its support for/promoting the idea religion was BS, bad, and to be suppressed. I would argue the active atheism within communist governments is a characteristic that went well beyond typical secularist separation of church and state that it requires special note. I haven’t held any atheist here responsible for what communism has done, but the attempt to deny a role of atheism in communism is similar to a Catholic trying to deny the Catholic Church’s role in the Crusades. A history of atheism should include communism, I haven’t seen a sound argument here saying not doing so is anything but incomplete and selective history.

    “I did not. And he did not. She was his mistress during WWII and at the time of his death. Hitler was never married.”

    That differs with other accounts read and I even checked wikipedia (I know it is a far from fool proof source but can give decent info). By what was written there she was his mistress for several years and then married him not long before their suicides. At this point is seems likely that it is historically accurate to say Hitler had married. An irony here is that you complained when I assumed you were correct.

    “Irrelevant. It was his excuse. Whether or not you or I (or Mel Gibson) agree with him is beside the point. I feel like you’re really not getting that, and I’m a bit tired of reiterating the same point.”

    I generally like the idea of trying to be historically accurate so that is why it may matter to me. But if you don’t want to discuss this point too much and feel it was just an excuse for Hitler to do something I won’t hold it against you as it may not shape our discussion much anyway.

    “Um, what? When did I say that no atheist was every angry or irrational? Sometimes I’m angry and irrational, and I’m an atheist. So there’s that invalidated. But I like to think that overall I am not an angry or irrational person, which is how most theists would like to describe all atheists who are not accommodationists.”

    Define “accomodationist” please. Also I as wondered if you were implying or assuming I had or did since I was the only one arguing a non-atheist POV at the time. Especially as there was someone who made a comment I thought wasn’t rational. My comments were toward at a particular person for a specific comment but not all atheists, thus I wasn’t generalizing with that remark.

    Also it would be hard for either of us to know what “most” religious people feel about atheists. I’m sure some would describe atheists as irrational and angry but for the word most to be used is a bit iffy without a poll or something. Most religious people I’ve spoken with don’t talk about atheists because, frankly, they have other things on their minds.

    “The whole point of science is to challenge everything we think we know. But no legitimate scientist puts something forward as fact unless it can be proven with empirical evidence.”

    I may disagree with you to a point here. They do put forward ideas that they think are true and those ideas are sometimes discussed openly (& in public) until proven one way or another. Now you can correct me if I am wrong but are there ongoing discussions about string theory, or what will happen with the universe (in terms of expansion or contraction in the far future). These are ideas generated with some scientific basis but without certainty when they were first discussed. Plus the whole idea of testing a theory may allow for an incorrect theory to be put forward last a very long time as it may only proven wrong decades later. So certainty is not guaranteed with science, we may come as close as possible but the guarantee isn’t ever totally there and thus what is proven is that the last bit of evidence didn’t undo the theory-not that the next will or will not.

    I expect scientific research to be solid enough that the odds are above average theory is true but asking for more than can be pushing it. And one of the things I would argue hasn’t happened is that proof has been found debunking all religions around the world.

    “If you pay me $500,000 I will come to your house after the revelation and take care of your pets. I promise. You can test me on it after it happens.”

    Sorry, you’re too pricey. If you lower the amount to $0.05 I may consider it worth the risk you won’t follow through on your promise.

    Though my point is that with death the ideas about what happens next will be proven for you and me one way or another. So there is a test that each individual is likely to conduct, I just admitted the difficulty in communicating the results to the rest of society.

    “But because there is no evidence that they exist, you live your life under the presumption that they don’t. Congratulations. You are an a-unicornist and an a-mermaidist. When you understand that, you will understand the atheist point of view.

    Logical fallacy. Appeal to Popularity. A whole lot of people believe in aliens, too. Do you?”

    A couple problems with this. A lot of generally rational people (everyone I know has had irrational moments-part of being human) show by their continual actions in relation to religion that religion isn’t due to sudden spurt of emotion (when I’d guess either of us generally act irrational). Thus at least some level of religion can be within the realm of the rational put into practice.

    The context unicorns are presented in is one of fantasy, generally that people made up stories that included them or other “mythical” creatures. The context religion is presented in is quite different. Many religions point to a specific event(s) at some point that would be considered witnessed and vouched for by the individuals present at the time. Unless we build a time machine it may be impossible to prove ourselves that such events did or did not take place but the fact that you have people who claimed to be witnesses puts religious experiences on a different level likelihood than stories about unicorns.

    About aliens, I don’t expect to get abducted off a road somewhere but I wouldn’t be shocked if life existed somewhere else. I would consider people who wanted to explore the possibility irrational because of a couple facts we both are aware of. 1. Members of our species (as far as I know) have yet to explore other planets let alone other solar systems. 2. As far as we know it is likely (we are only proving it in these more recent years) that there are massive numbers of planets and solar systems in the universe. Until we actually check to see if there is life elsewhere seems like jumping to gun to rule the existence of non-Earth related life in or out of rational though. Saying we don’t know is a rational answer.

    “Oh I wasn’t subtly trying to imply anything. I’m outright saying it. Religious beliefs are as ridiculous as aliens, mermaids, and thinking you’re Napoleon. And I have no problem with demeaning them. I do not see any need to respect other people’s delusions. Regardless of the number of people affected by them. (see logical fallacy: appeal to popularity above) A whole lot of people believed in Thor and Zeus, too.”

    Last I checked there were ways to prove (to relatively high degree of certainty) I’m not Napoleon. But there aren’t similar ways to prove religious believes are so now you claiming there isn’t much difference between apples and oranges. And considering what I just pointed out (with rational explanations) about the chances for us to successful know if there is non-Earth bound/related life it is a pretty safe bet to say you have jumped the gun and gone beyond what rationality will support.

    “Many of whom? Many religious people? Do you have statistics, or are you just saying that because it sounds good?”

    Many atheists. I mentioned that I’ve talked to one in person in to watching/reading some of the commentaries they come up with. Also I noted your manner has changed beyond what your suppossed evidence based definition of atheism would support. To say religion is “ridiculous” resembles what a 7 atheist as measured by the “Belief Scale” of Dawkins. Sure you are a 6?

    “As for the definition of atheism, look it up. Or see Dawkins’ Belief Scale. As he says in The God Delusion, there are many people in category 1, but very, very few in category 7. I am agnostic about gods to the same degree that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of my garden.”

    Like I said, sure you aren’t branching from a 6 to a 7? When many people talk about faeries they are directly thinking of characters made up purely in the context of fantasy stories. Thus non-existence is assumed.

    “If there is ever empirical proof to the contrary, I will revise my opinion. However, this does NOT mean that there are any circumstances under which I would become a Christian. There are not. If the bible is proven to my satisfaction to be the inerrant word of a god, I will concede the god’s existence and demand that it explain itself for murdering all those Egyptian firstborn children.”

    From an individualist perspective that is a good question. My guess is the answer would relate to society of the time in some fashion. But I suspect you agree with me that the guards would be a proper target rather than the children.

    “Correct. Extolling belief without evidence as a virtue is bad. I believe I’ve already said that several times.”

    I think people believed other solar systems had planets before we actually had a technique to measure the movement of star and thus prove or at last strongly imply the existence of planets outside our solar system via a combination of mathematics and very powerful telescopes. Perhaps you are too critical of belief, besides it isn’t that there is no evidence (with regard to religion) it is that it can be remarkably hard to test during our current physical lifetimes.

    “Um, what? I have no idea what you’re asking. If you want to know whether I think religion has a net negative impact on society, then the answer is yes, I do. And I would venture to guess that many of the things you consider to be “good,” are things I would not consider to be “good.” Mother Theresa comes to mind. I am not a fan. (No, I really don’t want to get into an argument about the merits of MT.)”

    Depends on what you think of as “good” or “bad”. I defined “bad” as harming or killing people and “good” as helping or saving them. That seems understandable. If you define helping or saving as not “good” that can make me wonder if there is a twisted understanding of “good” that isn’t readily explainable just by your being an atheist and me not.

    “I don’t know what half-truths you think you’ve pointed out, as the vast majority of your arguments consist of misdirection and logical fallacy (e.g. non-sequiturs).”

    I already pointed to a list on this website as one sided and included things that more properly belong under the title “This person was being an ass” (a light way of putting it, but that you for providing a good point of mutual understanding that may sum up something I tried to describe earlier in a better fashion) rather than the claim religion made this happen.

    “The day there is absolute, concrete proof in a divine being, is the day I will accept and embrace organised religion.

    I assume you missed that bit.”

    Nope, I honestly forgot about it. Still that means he was contradicting himself to a degree. Not something unheard of for people to do.

    Also your talking with a “me” rather than “they” last I checked.

    Bobby, Marx referred to religion as an illusion. If that doesn’t fit within atheism its hard to see what will. And not only was he one of the ideological fathers of communism but this understanding was part of what he put into communist ideology. I admit not having a communist friend to personally check on this with but if I did I strongly suspect he would say communism is atheist.

    I haven’t been here before but I would say what you’re repeating is not historically correct. Repeating it does not somehow make it true. I don’t know if you came up with that understanding or someone else did but my guess is that it would be labeled untrue by a serious historian of either atheist or religious leaning.

    blufinder

    Actually there are a few people who think that divine revelation has been coming in bits to all of humanity and that somehow we haven’t been able to put together all the various understandings in a form that properly reflects its unity. No I don’t believe in Zeus but I also know this is a theological idea out there.

    There is some level of courtesy involved in not making a mountain out of a mole hill. Though hoping to use a potty mouth doesn’t imply a desire for courtesy.

    I agree with you on the condoms and gay rights but not with anti-abortion. I see that as a life or death decision being made without any input from the person whose life or death is being decided. If the idea of liberty is that your freedom ends at my nose then there is a rational argument that the proverbial nose being harmed worst has had the most of its own liberty denied. And if you are thinking only religious people can be pro-life on the issue of abortion I recommend you look up the secular, drug legalizing, gay rights supporting, get government “out of people’s lives” libertarian political party.

    Also I’ve seen an woman who I recall was an Anglican bishop from California on the Newshour PBS program this or last year.

    See above for my thoughts on unicorns and religion. Though you strike me as just trying to be incendiary there.

    pplr | Jul 20, 2009 | Reply

  278. correction blufinder,

    She is from Nevada.

    That you didn’t know about this indicates either you’re still making assumptions about religious groups or you aren’t keeping up with what has been going on with religious thoughts/events.

    pplr | Jul 20, 2009 | Reply

  279. correction blufinder,

    She is from Nevada.

    That you didn’t know about this indicates either you’re still making assumptions about religious groups or you aren’t keeping up with what has been going on in terms of religious thoughts/events.

    pplr | Jul 20, 2009 | Reply

  280. Apologies for the double post.

    pplr | Jul 20, 2009 | Reply

  281. Saying that there’s a connection between atheism and communism that’s similar to the connection between Christianity and the Crusades is truly one of the stupidest things I’ve read in a long time. I’m not even going to bother pointing out why that’s so completely lame, anyone with an I.Q. over 80 can see it clearly.

    “…you aren’t keeping up with what’s going on with religious thought…”

    Wow. I nominate that one for best oxymoron of the year. Religious thought. That’s like Holy War and Jumbo Shrimp. I love it.

    bobby | Jul 20, 2009 | Reply

  282. “Bobby, Marx referred to religion as an illusion. If that doesn’t fit within atheism its hard to see what will. And not only was he one of the ideological fathers of communism but this understanding was part of what he put into communist ideology. I admit not having a communist friend to personally check on this with but if I did I strongly suspect he would say communism is atheist.

    I haven’t been here before but I would say what you’re repeating is not historically correct. Repeating it does not somehow make it true. I don’t know if you came up with that understanding or someone else did but my guess is that it would be labeled untrue by a serious historian of either atheist or religious leaning.”

    As with the rest of your crap, you’re dead wrong once again:

    The quotation, in context, reads as follows (emphasis added):
    Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

    There are countless websites that will confirm the quote. If you had half a brain you would have looked it up before you told me I was wrong and made an ass of yourself yet again.

    bobby | Jul 20, 2009 | Reply

  283. @pplr: I’m not quite sure whether you are wilfully being ignorant with misspelling my name, or whether you think somehow doing it is going to turn me into your point of view. Say it with me. blufindr. Bee-ell-you-eff-eye-en-dee-are. No e. Never was an e, never will be an e. From this post onward, I shall continue to dismiss every point you hurl at me until you can acknowledge me correctly. Capisce?

    My desire for courtesy vanished around the same time as your inability to simply use my name correctly appeared.

    Okay, abortion arguments are a whole new can of worms. I will simply say this: A foetus, until it is able to survive outside of its host body, is not a human being. It is not a viable life. It is completely dependent, in a way which is absolutely irreplaceable, on its host. For this, it is no better than a parasite, or cancerous object. If a woman wishes to free herself of an unwanted pregnancy, I see no reason to prevent that. It is misogynistic to protect the ‘life’ of a clump of cells, over that of a woman who does not desire to be a mother.

    “Just give the child up for adoption”. You know what? I’ve heard that argument so many times, it’s silly. I’ll consider it when someone tells me that, and heads out to adopt my ill-begotten child.

    Link me to a secular anti-abortion group that is even remotely as outspoken and outright violent as religious ones. I have yet to find any non-religious groups that actively fight against abortion as hard as Xtian groups and Church-supported lobbying has done.

    Okay, one woman, one bishop. One. What about the rest of them? Repression of women still happens. Forcing a woman to bear children, without applying any similar directive of care to the father, is misogynistic and out-dated. Pure and simple.

    “People who claimed to be witnesses.”

    You just sank the last nail into the coffin there, dear.

    “Non-existence is assumed.”

    I better explain this to my 4-year-old niece. She doesn’t yet understand that faeries are “characters made up purely in the context of fantasy stories.” She genuinely believes faeries exist — just as many people genuinely believe God exists.

    “I think people [...] current physical lifetimes.”

    Extrapolation of known facts and belief based on a logically flawed book written by sheep-herders are not at all two sides of the same coin.

    @bobby: Emphasis where?

    blufindr | Jul 20, 2009 | Reply

  284. Bobby

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

    If you tend to think of religion as an illusion then the God or gods involved don’t exist in your opinion and you are an atheist. Also I have read the quote before and don’t see it contradicting the notion communism is atheist.

    Moreover the repeated imposition of “state atheism” through multiple communist nations (not just those under Stalin’s power) indicates a connection between communism itself and atheism.

    I noticed something when reading through the wiki descriptions. That Dawkins (trained as a biologist rather than a historian) differed from this understanding of history. I admit I haven’t to read his commentary on the subject yet but I’m thinking I’ll take it with a grain of salt because he is going outside his field of experience and against those with for more training (perhaps professionalism) in theirs. On top of that he as a major spokesperson/proponent for atheism in general it isn’t hard to argue he comes to the table with perspective biased in favor of delinking atheism and any bad things that may be associated with it. It isn’t irrational to guess he is about as non-biased on the topic of atheism in history as the president of the NRA or a gun control group would be with a history of the effects of guns in society.

    Calling me an idiot doesn’t change historical facts and one of those is that people were punished, even killed, for refusing to give up their various religions.

    blufindr, I think I realized why I misspelled you name last night. Besides that I was tired when I typed my response to you the “findr” portion of your name kept making me think of the word “finder”. I’ll try not to do it again.

    Most protests about abortion I’ve seen or heard of aren’t violent and while there have been the rare times an individual was hurt or killed this notably out side the norm. Both within what I have seen and in general. And I suspect anti-abortion protests happen with at least a weekly frequency overall and there isn’t related violence each week.

    Also a “cancerous object” is often life threatening for woman is not generally viewed as not capable of being a self-aware life form so there is a difference.

    About secular opposition to abortion, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was an atheists for life group out there somewhere. If I see it I’ll try to remember to post a link. But the opposition to abortion can be quite secular concerns related to the idea human rights should include fetuses/babies prior to their being born. A point worth noting since I suspect you felt opposition to abortion is limited to religious groups and/or people who generally oppose equality for women in society.

    And neither I nor many religious people oppose getting the father involved in some fashion or another.

    How “outspoken” a politician is can depend on his or her audience. However the Libertarian party and its candidates generally don’t have a record of backing away from their Pro Life stance and this includes Ron Paul (someone who is arguably as much a member of the Libertarian party as the GOP-and at times has been officially rather than just in practice).

    I guess I grew up not being like your niece, granted I cannot remember much of when I was that young but I doubt I believed in faeries then-at one point I was faking I was asleep when my mother came to get one of my teeth to replace it with a coin along the lines of the tooth faerie or some such thing.

    Yes the Bible can seem to contradict itself, before you were an atheist did you belong to one of the more fundamentalist variety of Christians? Those are the often the people who tend to take each word of it literally.

    pplr | Jul 20, 2009 | Reply

  285. Communism was a generally atheist movement that actively opposed religion. blah, blah, etc.

    No. Communism was a religion replacement which, for all intents and purposes functioned as a religion. Other religions were only one of the many things communism opposed as interfering with its practice.

    I grow weary of repeating that something done by atheists is not the same as something done in the name of atheism, so from this point forward I shall infer that you are indeed being willfully ignorant, and I decline to discuss the matter further. We are not going to agree or even come to an understanding, so continuation of this topic is pointless.

    I even checked wikipedia

    I did, too. And blufindr quoted it. Mistress.

    An irony here is that you complained when I assumed you were correct.

    I “complained” that you misrepresented what I said. I would rather be wrong (even though I was not) than have something attributed to me that I did not say.

    Define “accomodationist” please

    You don’t have access to dictionary.com?

    ac⋅com⋅mo⋅da⋅tion⋅ist
      /əˌkɒməˈdeɪʃənɪst/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-kom-uh-dey-shuh-nist] Show IPA
    Use accommodationist in a Sentence
    –noun
    1. a person who finds it expedient to adapt to the opinions or behavior of the majority of people, esp. as a means of economic or political survival.
    –adjective
    2. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of such a person: They criticized the senator’s conduct as being accommodationist

    I may disagree with you to a point here.

    Feel free, but you’re using a flawed analogy. You are saying that scientists come up with theories and hypotheses, postulate ideas, etc. This is correct. But what I am saying is that they call those things exactly that. They do not say “this is the absolute truth, even though I have no proof, because this book says so.” They say, “this seems to fit the facts, what do you guys think? Is it possible?” And then they work on trying to find flaws in the hypothesis, and determining whether it does indeed fit the facts.

    A couple problems with this. A lot of generally rational people (everyone I know has had irrational moments-part of being human) show by their continual actions in relation to religion that religion isn’t due to sudden spurt of emotion (when I’d guess either of us generally act irrational). Thus at least some level of religion can be within the realm of the rational put into practice.

    Repeating the appeal to popularity doesn’t make it any less of a logical fallacy.

    The context unicorns are presented in is one of fantasy, generally that people made up stories that included them or other “mythical” creatures.

    Except the ones in the bible, right? Bible unicorns are real creatures according to answersingenesis.com.

    you have people who claimed to be witnesses puts religious experiences on a different level likelihood than stories about unicorns.

    People like Job, who spoke with your god about unicorns?

    About aliens, I don’t expect to get abducted off a road somewhere but I wouldn’t be shocked if life existed somewhere else.

    And yet there are many people who not only expect it, but insist it has happened to them. I believe you understood which context of aliens I was discussing. If you didn’t, I was not speaking of the possibility of extraterrestrial life existing elsewhere in the cosmos. I was speaking of people who think they or other people have been abductees, people who think an alien spacecraft landed in Roswell, New Mexico in 1947, people who think they or others have seen alien spacecrafts in our skies, and others with similar beliefs. There are many of them. Does that makes them correct?

    To say religion is “ridiculous” resembles what a 7 atheist as measured by the “Belief Scale” of Dawkins. Sure you are a 6?

    Did I say I was a 6? I would say, like Dawkins himself, I’m more of a 6.5 or so. I can’t and won’t go all the way to 7, but I feel like I’m past 6. I do not believe in the supernatural. I think the possibility of gods existing is incredibly small. I won’t call it impossible, nor would I call a spaceship landing in my front yard impossible. But IMO, the probability is small enough to be considered absurd. OTOH, if I were shown evidence that proved gods’ existence to my satisfaction, I would certainly concede the point.

    If you define helping or saving as not “good” that can make me wonder if there is a twisted understanding of “good” that isn’t readily explainable just by your being an atheist and me not.

    Straw man. Cute. Keep trying that tactic. It will probably work. Yes, that was sarcastic.

    Nope, I honestly forgot about it. Still that means he was contradicting himself to a degree.

    “He” is female.

    Also your talking with a “me” rather than “they” last I checked.

    If this was directed at me, I don’t know to what statement you are referring. But given that you continually spell blufindr’s name wrong and refer to her as “him,” I feel like you don’t have a lot of room to judge.

    Heidi | Jul 20, 2009 | Reply

  286. “Communism was a generally atheist movement that actively opposed religion. blah, blah, etc.

    No. Communism was a religion replacement which, for all intents and purposes functioned as a religion. Other religions were only one of the many things communism opposed as interfering with its practice.

    I grow weary of repeating that something done by atheists is not the same as something done in the name of atheism, so from this point forward I shall infer that you are indeed being willfully ignorant, and I decline to discuss the matter further. We are not going to agree or even come to an understanding, so continuation of this topic is pointless.”

    Religion in some shape or form deals at least partly with the supernatural. What “State Atheism” did included things resemble and function as the worst abuses of of/by religion. So you are right and wrong-it did somethings religions have but not all.

    And I already pointed out how there is a difference between an organized effort to put atheism or a religion into practice and someone acting outside the norm or even contrary to atheism or a religion. I’ve seen a selective history in some of the remarks here made by people here and what you said seems to be an attempt to inappropriately distance organized atheism and atheism as a whole. There may be a lot of things done by organized religion that I don’t agree with but I don’t try to argue that those actions don’t belong in a history of religion(s), far from it.

    “I did, too. And blufindr quoted it. Mistress.”

    Then you and blufinder missed this: As Red Army troops fought their way into the neighbourhood on 29 April 1945, she married Hitler during a brief civil ceremony: she was 33 and he 56. Less than 40 hours later they committed suicide together in a sitting room of the bunker, she by biting into a capsule of cyanide.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Braun

    ‘I “complained” that you misrepresented what I said. I would rather be wrong (even though I was not) than have something attributed to me that I did not say.’

    I assumed you were right, that may have not accurately reflected what you thought but it was hardly an insult or even criticism.

    “You don’t have access to dictionary.com?

    ac⋅com⋅mo⋅da⋅tion⋅ist
      /əˌkɒməˈdeɪʃənɪst/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-kom-uh-dey-shuh-nist] Show IPA
    Use accommodationist in a Sentence
    –noun
    1. a person who finds it expedient to adapt to the opinions or behavior of the majority of people, esp. as a means of economic or political survival.
    –adjective
    2. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of such a person: They criticized the senator’s conduct as being accommodationist”

    There are some organizations that restrict the advancement of people who don’t share the beliefs of the group that organization affiliates itself with. However neither your economic survival nor political rights are by and large are not denied you in “Western” society in spite of any personal decision on your part to “believe” or not. There are a lot of places today where claiming that atheism is a reason you’re unfairly treated would be outdated. Ironically, I even know an atheist professor who works at a religious university-and this is without pretending on her part to be something other than an atheist. Her atheism didn’t impede her getting the job and very much doubt she is the only person in her situation throughout the whole of the USA.

    “Feel free, but you’re using a flawed analogy. You are saying that scientists come up with theories and hypotheses, postulate ideas, etc. This is correct. But what I am saying is that they call those things exactly that. They do not say “this is the absolute truth, even though I have no proof, because this book says so.” They say, “this seems to fit the facts, what do you guys think? Is it possible?” And then they work on trying to find flaws in the hypothesis, and determining whether it does indeed fit the facts.”

    You seem to be assuming that to some degree or another this doesn’t happen within religions. Also in the absence of absolute proof it isn’t irrational to go with a best guess-I’m pretty sure some of that goes into religious interpretation.

    “Repeating the appeal to popularity doesn’t make it any less of a logical fallacy.”

    But that isn’t purely what I was doing.

    “Except the ones in the bible, right? Bible unicorns are real creatures according to answersingenesis.com.”

    Religion isn’t limited to what sometimes has been described by as the most narrow (minded) and literal movements/interpretations within it. And you probably know that already.

    “People like Job, who spoke with your god about unicorns?”

    See above.

    “And yet there are many people who not only expect it, but insist it has happened to them. I believe you understood which context of aliens I was discussing. If you didn’t, I was not speaking of the possibility of extraterrestrial life existing elsewhere in the cosmos. I was speaking of people who think they or other people have been abductees, people who think an alien spacecraft landed in Roswell, New Mexico in 1947, people who think they or others have seen alien spacecrafts in our skies, and others with similar beliefs. There are many of them. Does that makes them correct?”

    I wasn’t with them at the time they claimed to be abducted so I cannot prove it one way or another. I suspect that at least some of them make it up but I won’t claim all do so without proof. As if they were abducted or not doesn’t impact how I carry on with my life or how I treat others it really doesn’t matter to me that much until it does.

    “Did I say I was a 6? I would say, like Dawkins himself, I’m more of a 6.5 or so. I can’t and won’t go all the way to 7, but I feel like I’m past 6. I do not believe in the supernatural. I think the possibility of gods existing is incredibly small. I won’t call it impossible, nor would I call a spaceship landing in my front yard impossible. But IMO, the probability is small enough to be considered absurd. OTOH, if I were shown evidence that proved gods’ existence to my satisfaction, I would certainly concede the point.”

    In practice are you attempted to use the same fallacy of popularity you accused me of. People who claim to have met aliens are viewed as strange by a large portion of society. And you tried to relate that to religious belief. As to your proof, I doubt I can give it to you but as I mentioned before we will each eventually end up testing our beliefs/understandings. So you may just have to use the patience some people here have credited you with.

    “Straw man. Cute. Keep trying that tactic. It will probably work. Yes, that was sarcastic.”

    I proposed a method of testing. It may be possible to come up with a better one it was a proposed idea nonetheless. Though I also expressed doubt that such a test would be fairly/accurately run here if it could be.

    ‘“He” is female.’

    My mistake. True it is a guess that didn’t turn out to be correct, but not one that somehow changes the argument for or against most of what I’ve said.

    “If this was directed at me, I don’t know to what statement you are referring. But given that you continually spell blufindr’s name wrong and refer to her as “him,” I feel like you don’t have a lot of room to judge.”

    I do in that there is a difference between typos and generalizing someone into a group as a method of dismissing him or her.

    pplr | Jul 20, 2009 | Reply

  287. Sorry blufindr typing “blufinder” has become a bit of a habit. I’ll still try to stop but, as with ticks, sometimes some slip through.

    pplr | Jul 20, 2009 | Reply

  288. I assumed you were right, that may have not accurately reflected what you thought but it was hardly an insult or even criticism.

    Did I say that it was? Please don’t distort my correction of fact. Thank you.

    There are some organizations that restrict the advancement of people who don’t share the beliefs of the group that organization affiliates itself with. etc.

    You asked for the definition of the word I used. I gave it. I said there are accommodationists. There are. You’re arguing with something I did not say.

    You seem to be assuming that to some degree or another this doesn’t happen within religions.

    Of course it does. Then that person either leaves the faith or ignores their question and decides it’s all metaphor.

    Religion isn’t limited to what sometimes has been described by as the most narrow (minded) and literal movements/interpretations within it.

    No, it isn’t. As I said, when something is impossible or highly implausible, people often decide that must be a metaphor or a parable just so they can keep on believing it.

    In practice are you attempted to use the same fallacy of popularity you accused me of.

    I did no such thing. I made a comparison.

    People who claim to have met aliens are viewed as strange by a large portion of society. And you tried to relate that to religious belief.

    People who believe in gods are also viewed as strange by a large portion of society. For example, by a very large segment of the population of Europe.

    As to your proof, I doubt I can give it to you but as I mentioned before we will each eventually end up testing our beliefs/understandings. So you may just have to use the patience some people here have credited you with.

    As will you, then, when I say I will reevaluate the situation after I die. But until then, there is no proof of supernatural woo.

    I proposed a method of testing.

    Please read what I quoted. I was referring to you trying to insult me by calling my interpretation of “good” “twisted.” If you’re going to argue with me, please try and argue with what I actually say.

    My mistake. True it is a guess that didn’t turn out to be correct, but not one that somehow changes the argument for or against most of what I’ve said.

    I did not say that it did. I was merely passing along information in an effort to correct your pronoun. Would you like it if she started calling you “her?”

    I do in that there is a difference between typos and generalizing someone into a group as a method of dismissing him or her.

    I still don’t know to what you are referring.

    Heidi | Jul 20, 2009 | Reply

  289. @pplr: Thank you. It does tend to be something that niggles at me a lot more than it should.

    “Human rights”. Somehow, in my mind, human rights should more justfully be granted to the woman. There are many, many circumstances I can think of as to why a woman would want to have an abortion, and only a few of these at best could be deemed by anybody as insufficient or otherwise lacking.

    It would be nice for a woman to get her partner, or ‘father’ (if this is not her partner), involved in the decision regarding the foetus. However, consider a situation in which the woman was raped. Or the potential child, a product of incest. In both these cases, the ‘father’ may not want anything to do with the ‘child’. Or he may be able to coerce the woman into keeping and potentially raising a child she does not want. Sure, it would be fair and polite if he was involved. But I think we can all agree that women generally are not idiotic enough to choose to undergo a surgical procedure (which, I conceed, possesses certain risks) without fair consideration beforehand.

    No, I was not a fundamental Xtian. I was, however, raised in a household where the Bible was used in a multitude of ways. For example, as a method of suppression, by telling me that children did not ‘disrespect’ their elders by contradicting them in any way. And then, my stepmother would usually wallop me with it, if I refused to conceed to her point. So I guess you could say I was raised to be rather anti-Bible.

    @Heidi: I didn’t read the full thing. The entry is rather lengthy. Here’s the quote he’s referring to:

    “During the final days of the war in 1945, Hitler married his long-time mistress Eva Braun. Less than two days later, the two committed suicide.”

    He married a woman, with whom he was holding a pre-marital sexual relationship, before committing suicide. Good to know he was such a good Xtian (!)

    @pplr: http://atheism.about.com/b/2009/07/06/controversial-sign-recognizes-humanity-of-atheists-christians-protest.htm

    Good to know Xtians can advertise all they want about Jesus saving and whatever, but atheists cannot advertise about Jesus not existing.

    “I wasn’t with them at the time they claimed to be abducted so I cannot prove it one way or another. I suspect that at least some of them make it up but I won’t claim all do so without proof. As if they were abducted or not doesn’t impact how I carry on with my life or how I treat others it really doesn’t matter to me that much until it does.”

    You weren’t with many Xtians when they claimed to have religious experiences. Nor can you prove it one way or the other. Sheer force in numbers does not make up for empirical evidence. I believe in court, they refer to this as “hearsay”?

    Aside: Good lord, see how long this freakin’ page is, with all our replies.

    ::waits for Dave to close comments::

    blufindr | Jul 20, 2009 | Reply

  290. Blufindr and Heidi:

    I presided over a literary discussion group for 15 years in which a certain member engaged in the same tactics being exhibited here. Misrepresentation of what was said, babbling inanities, taking things out of context and then restating what was said to his advantage and then demanding that you defend his misrepresentation of what you said. This person did these things with the express intention of destroying the group, which he succeeded in doing.

    Having gone over everything that’s been said, I can see clearly it’s exactly the same. Just thought I’d point that out.

    bobby | Jul 20, 2009 | Reply

  291. Why would I close the comments? This has been fun to watch.

    I consider a post successful if it gets five or six comments. This one is breaking all records.

    And I’ve got enough bookmarks on the subject to do it all over again a half dozen times, with more coming in every day.

    Hittman | Jul 20, 2009 | Reply

  292. Having gone over everything that’s been said, I can see clearly it’s exactly the same. Just thought I’d point that out.

    Yeah, I understand the mentality. I’ve had similar problems in work-related forums (I’m basically a freelance CG artist). One particular person didn’t want me discussing an incident where one of her friends had been banned from selling on that site for copyright infringement. So she purposely and continually violated forum rules until the moderators shut down the thread.

    And I’ve got enough bookmarks on the subject to do it all over again a half dozen times, with more coming in every day.

    This is a test of my ADD, isn’t it? LOL.

    Heidi | Jul 20, 2009 | Reply

  293. @Heidi

    “I assumed you were right, that may have not accurately reflected what you thought but it was hardly an insult or even criticism.

    Did I say that it was? Please don’t distort my correction of fact. Thank you.”

    But is seemed that your reaction was a bit snippy. As if I had insulted you. Did I read too much into that?

    “There are some organizations that restrict the advancement of people who don’t share the beliefs of the group that organization affiliates itself with. etc.
    You asked for the definition of the word I used. I gave it. I said there are accommodationists. There are. You’re arguing with something I did not say.”

    I asked for the definition because I both didn’t know what it was (though I guessed) nor how you were using it. The implication of you comment was that if atheists didn’t act like they agreed with Christians they would be prejudiced against and hindered/harmed somehow-and the definition plus the way you used in includes people losing their jobs just for being an atheist. As I said, by and large you’re safe in this society in terms of job security if you are an atheist or not. I’m sure there are exceptions somewhere (even have personal experience with one where my religious beliefs didn’t match the officially required religious beliefs for the possible employer) but they aren’t the rule.

    “You seem to be assuming that to some degree or another this doesn’t happen within religions.
    Of course it does. Then that person either leaves the faith or ignores their question and decides it’s all metaphor.”

    Now it appears, and you can correct me if I’m wrong, that you’re not admitting to the fact that people stay in their religions but often reform or improve it as well as expanding its theological thinking and practice. Your comment seems to limit the choices of a thinking religious individual to either leaving the person’s religion or ignoring the question or concern he or she had. You fail to acknowledge that the option chosen by many has been to try to improve the religion.

    “Religion isn’t limited to what sometimes has been described by as the most narrow (minded) and literal movements/interpretations within it.
    No, it isn’t. As I said, when something is impossible or highly implausible, people often decide that must be a metaphor or a parable just so they can keep on believing it.”

    Many parts of the Bible have parables and metaphors so this is hardly irrational. Am I reading too much into you by guessing you are saying this is a dismissive attitude that people are just trying to ignore (and deciding it is metaphor is the equivalent of that) a problem so they can continue as before?

    “In practice are you attempted to use the same fallacy of popularity you accused me of.
    I did no such thing. I made a comparison.”

    You compared belief in religion to that of unicorns to say it is ridiculous before. Many people feel the idea of aliens is ridiculous. Thus you were possiblty doing both at once. That is saying religion is as ridiculous a belief as one of aliens existing and belief in aliens is assumed to be ridiculous because many people think so.

    “As to your proof, I doubt I can give it to you but as I mentioned before we will each eventually end up testing our beliefs/understandings. So you may just have to use the patience some people here have credited you with.
    As will you, then, when I say I will reevaluate the situation after I die. But until then, there is no proof of supernatural woo.”

    I’ll agree to the extend that there is no proof that I think I can give or gaurantee you right now other than that.

    “I proposed a method of testing.
    Please read what I quoted. I was referring to you trying to insult me by calling my interpretation of “good” “twisted.” If you’re going to argue with me, please try and argue with what I actually say.”

    You said I wouldn’t agree with you on what “good” is. The only 2 things I laid out as measures of good were saving or helping people. If anyone told me that, in general, saving people’s lives or helping them wasn’t good I would think they were twisted in some way. If that isn’t what you meant than I apologize. But there are some really messed up people who think hurting others is a way of helping them (such as an ex-uncle, he became “ex” via divorce, of mine that used to hit my brother, a kid back then, and then tell him to “Be a man.”)

    “My mistake. True it is a guess that didn’t turn out to be correct, but not one that somehow changes the argument for or against most of what I’ve said.
    I did not say that it did. I was merely passing along information in an effort to correct your pronoun. Would you like it if she started calling you “her?”

    I may correct her if she did, but I wouldn’t make a big deal out of it.

    “I do in that there is a difference between typos and generalizing someone into a group as a method of dismissing him or her.
    I still don’t know to what you are referring.”

    To this from a few earlier comments.:

    1133. Wrong. Russian communism was actually a form of religion. Stalin originally studied to become a priest but abandoned his faith after reading Origin of the Species. His brand of communism was very anti-science and was a quasi-religious organization. He never did anything in the name of atheism, he did it all in the name of his new religion, communism. When you idiot christians quit telling this lie?
    1134. bobby | Jul 19, 2009 | Reply
    1135. @bobby How many times do you think we have to repeat that? I’m getting bored.
    1136. Heidi | Jul 19, 2009 | Reply
    1137. That’s why I say we’re being jerked around. That may have been a new idiot who said that, or it may be the same idiot using another identity.
    1138. bobby | Jul 19, 2009 | Reply
    1139. Probably so. I’m just practicing the not-rising-to-the-bait when they’re button-pushing tactic. But I have a bit of ADD, so my patience is not infinite. lol.
    1140. Heidi | Jul 19, 2009 | Reply

    Specifically I’m not a “they” nor am I using a “button-pushing tactic”. Also it is ironic here you are talking about me pushing your buttons to Bobby when one of his methods of discussing things is to use insults.

    @Blufindr

    “Thank you. It does tend to be something that niggles at me a lot more than it should.”

    No problem, I think most of us have quirks or pet peeves of some kind or another.

    “Somehow, in my mind, human rights should more justfully be granted to the woman. There are many, many circumstances I can think of as to why a woman would want to have an abortion, and only a few of these at best could be deemed by anybody as insufficient or otherwise lacking.”

    There are alot of women who have my sympathies because they have been shafted or treated unfairly in some way or another-and even today we haven’t totally shaken sexism from some parts of our society. However the concern I have in this particular situation is that there seems to be an even worse shafting of a 3rd party who is neither the woman nor the man.

    “It would be nice for a woman to get her partner, or ‘father’ (if this is not her partner), involved in the decision regarding the foetus. However, consider a situation in which the woman was raped. Or the potential child, a product of incest. In both these cases, the ‘father’ may not want anything to do with the ‘child’. Or he may be able to coerce the woman into keeping and potentially raising a child she does not want. Sure, it would be fair and polite if he was involved. But I think we can all agree that women generally are not idiotic enough to choose to undergo a surgical procedure (which, I conceed, possesses certain risks) without fair consideration beforehand.”

    I’m not saying that women don’t seriously think about having a having an abortion before they do. The easy agreement between the two of us is that she shouldn’t be coerced into raising a child. But as before I worry about a 3rd party getting shafted the most in spite of the fact such a situation that has already gotten very bad.

    “No, I was not a fundamental Xtian. I was, however, raised in a household where the Bible was used in a multitude of ways. For example, as a method of suppression, by telling me that children did not ‘disrespect’ their elders by contradicting them in any way. And then, my stepmother would usually wallop me with it, if I refused to conceed to her point. So I guess you could say I was raised to be rather anti-Bible.”

    I can understand that and from what you describe they seem somewhat authoritarian. For my family you could sometimes tell if it was Sunday or not by if my mother and I were arguing that morning about what I should wear (to church). My take on/reaction to the situation was a bit different in that I felt my problem wasn’t with God but my mother.

    “@Heidi: I didn’t read the full thing. The entry is rather lengthy. Here’s the quote he’s referring to:
    “During the final days of the war in 1945, Hitler married his long-time mistress Eva Braun. Less than two days later, the two committed suicide.”
    He married a woman, with whom he was holding a pre-marital sexual relationship, before committing suicide. Good to know he was such a good Xtian (!)”

    I guess I should have given more pointers as to where to look, sorry if I could have saved some time.
    Just to touch on (for the point of clarity) my earlier point about Hitler. I don’t include him in specific when I talk about the nasty things organized religion has been involved in because he wasn’t a religious official, didn’t go out of his way to aid a religion as some of the other dictators have such as when they try to forcibly convert people (not a good thing IMO but evidence they actually are concerned about their religion), and may not have even been a good follower of his supposed religion in personal practice.

    “@pplr: http://atheism.about.com/b/2009/07/06/controversial-sign-recognizes-humanity-of-atheists-christians-protest.htm
    Good to know Xtians can advertise all they want about Jesus saving and whatever, but atheists cannot advertise about Jesus not existing.”

    An atheist group sued the city government of a suburb not far from me and I don’t think the group was even based in-state. Specifically it wanted to get one of the four symbols removed from the city shield because it was a cross. I think there are both religious and atheist camps that nitpick and won’t live and let live.

    “I wasn’t with them at the time they claimed to be abducted so I cannot prove it one way or another. I suspect that at least some of them make it up but I won’t claim all do so without proof. As if they were abducted or not doesn’t impact how I carry on with my life or how I treat others it really doesn’t matter to me that much until it does.”
    You weren’t with many Xtians when they claimed to have religious experiences. Nor can you prove it one way or the other. Sheer force in numbers does not make up for empirical evidence. I believe in court, they refer to this as “hearsay”?

    Sometimes, and especially when dealing with historical events, “hearsay” evidence is all you can get. For an example of the difficulty knowing about a historical issue think about this real life problem. The battle of Midway was one of the turning points in WW2 for the USA when it came to fighting Japan. This is an event that happened less than 100 years ago, was important therefore noted by many people, occurred when there were functional news organizations actively in operation, and all this in addition to there being decent oppurtunities for people to take notes, write recollections, and maybe even make transcripts of the communications being sent back and forth via radio. With all this we don’t really know which of the commanders of US Naval forces in the area was responsible for winning the “battle” (which actually occurred over a little bit of time).

    There is alot of guessing and theorizing in history and historians don’t always have the advantage scientists do of being able to run tests to prove their theories. We don’t have the option of rerunning a battle a couple of times with one guy in charge and then the other. So touting the value of empirical evidence doesn’t address the fact that situations can be different (not always but sometimes) in making scientific and historical discoveries. And the difference is that it may not be possible, for very realistic reasons, to generate new evidence via research. Historians can and do try but there are often limitations that open the door for multiple theories to be proposed but not proven true, false, or sometimes just better than the others.

    “Aside: Good lord, see how long this freakin’ page is, with all our replies.”

    Yeah, we reply and reply.

    This person did these things with the express intention of destroying the group, which he succeeded in doing.
    Having gone over everything that’s been said, I can see clearly it’s exactly the same. Just thought I’d point that out.
    bobby | Jul 20, 2009 |

    I know everyone has their peeves, gripes, and life stories. But I’m starting to wonder here.

    Bobby tried to justify it when people had been murdered in what is readily described as suppression/oppression. When he did this and then kept repeating something that actually can be argued to be historically inaccurate I guessed Dawkins had written something inaccurate (Dawkins doesn’t even have an undergrad degree in history and is biased-meaning that he would be more likely to distort or even selectively edit those historical facts we do have to make a point he wants to make) and Bobby really bought into it.

    But then he goes on to try to make his points by insults-a sign of someone being emotional rather than rational.

    And now he “clearly” sees that my intent is to destroy…. not just wrong but paranoid?

    Blufindr or Heidi, have you known Bobby for long? And does he have emotional problems (moreso than the usual)?

    “Having gone over everything that’s been said, I can see clearly it’s exactly the same. Just thought I’d point that out.
    Yeah, I understand the mentality. I’ve had similar problems in work-related forums (I’m basically a freelance CG artist). One particular person didn’t want me discussing an incident where one of her friends had been banned from selling on that site for copyright infringement. So she purposely and continually violated forum rules until the moderators shut down the thread.”

    Heidi, please go back and look over his comments before you buy into them. Think about them and then please tell me if you think they are rational. Look at how he acted when he said the things he did and both ask yourself and then state what your opinion of me would be if I acted that way.

    I’m ADD as well but there is a difference between ADD and ED.

    pplr | Jul 21, 2009 | Reply

  294. @pplr: I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I do not think the foetus’s rights should ever override the woman’s, nor that this should even be an issue.

    There is a difference between lots, and I mean lots, of reports about the same event. By “same”, I mean, same thing, same time. Not same thing, different times. Until there is as much coverage of ONE religious experience, as there is about various battles or whatever throughout history, I’m not going to put much (if any) stock in reports.

    blufindr | Jul 21, 2009 | Reply

  295. But is seemed that your reaction was a bit snippy. As if I had insulted you. Did I read too much into that?

    Yes.

    I asked for the definition because I both didn’t know what it was (though I guessed) nor how you were using it. The implication of you comment was that if atheists didn’t act like they agreed with Christians they would be prejudiced against and hindered/harmed somehow-and the definition plus the way you used in includes people losing their jobs just for being an atheist. As I said, by and large you’re safe in this society in terms of job security if you are an atheist or not. I’m sure there are exceptions somewhere (even have personal experience with one where my religious beliefs didn’t match the officially required religious beliefs for the possible employer) but they aren’t the rule.

    Again, not quite what I said. But yes, that sort of thing does go on. What I mean(t) is that accommodationists are the ones who call outspoken atheists “militant” (just like believers do), and implore us to just shut up and leave things at status quo.

    You fail to acknowledge that the option chosen by many has been to try to improve the religion.

    Actually, if you re-read what I wrote, I said they decide it’s all metaphor if they don’t like what it says but still want to believe it.

    Many parts of the Bible have parables and metaphors so this is hardly irrational. Am I reading too much into you by guessing you are saying this is a dismissive attitude that people are just trying to ignore (and deciding it is metaphor is the equivalent of that) a problem so they can continue as before?

    Not at all. That’s exactly what they do. The parts they don’t like or that can’t work are metaphor. But the rest is true. Which is which is decided arbitrarily by each group.

    You compared belief in religion to that of unicorns to say it is ridiculous before. Many people feel the idea of aliens is ridiculous. Thus you were possiblty doing both at once. That is saying religion is as ridiculous a belief as one of aliens existing and belief in aliens is assumed to be ridiculous because many people think so.

    I think you misunderstand the fallacy of appeal to popularity. I made a valid comparison. Many people believe in alien visitations to earth. Many other people don’t, and find the notion quite absurd. The same is true for religion.

    Appeal to popularity, what you did, is to claim that something must be so, because many people believe it to be so. That is not what I did.

    If anyone told me that, in general, saving people’s lives or helping them wasn’t good I would think they were twisted in some way. If that isn’t what you meant than I apologize.

    I’m sorry, but with all due respect I’m calling bullshit and backpedaling on this. I gave an example of what kinds of “good” on which we may not agree:

    And I would venture to guess that many of the things you consider to be “good,” are things I would not consider to be “good.” Mother Theresa comes to mind. I am not a fan.

    And you proceeded to call me “twisted.” Straw. Man.

    I may correct her if she did, but I wouldn’t make a big deal out of it.

    This is inconsistent with your very next statement where you make a huge deal of my choice of pronoun.

    Specifically I’m not a “they” nor am I using a “button-pushing tactic”.

    Pronoun usage issues. However, I was not speaking to you, I was generalizing, and IMO, you are using button pushing tactics in some of your arguments, intentionally or not.

    An atheist group sued the city government of a suburb not far from me and I don’t think the group was even based in-state. Specifically it wanted to get one of the four symbols removed from the city shield because it was a cross. I think there are both religious and atheist camps that nitpick and won’t live and let live.

    I realize that this was not directed toward me, but this is a valid suit based on separation of church and state. It is not legal for government to respect one religion over others. Therefore, it is not legal to have a cross on a government shield.

    That is MUCH different than Big Mama getting cheesed off by a privately owned, privately funded sign she doesn’t like. No one sues churches for putting religious messages on their front lawns. Or on billboards, for that matter.

    Blufindr or Heidi, have you known Bobby for long? And does he have emotional problems (moreso than the usual)?

    Nope. Just met him in this thread. But his “emotional” issues sound to me a lot like “I have heard this script before. I keep answering it, and I am no longer amused.”

    Heidi, please go back and look over his comments before you buy into them.

    I have no idea if you’re here to purposely disrupt or destroy. But I have had experience with the kind of people who are, such as the one to which Bobby referred. That is what I meant by that statement.

    I do wonder what you and other Christians expect to accomplish coming into threads like this on atheist websites, though. (I single out Christians because I have never had a similar experience with anyone from any non-Christian faith.) If you’re hoping for conversions, at least in my case there is nothing that will ever make me a Christian. Flat. Out. Nothing. That includes proof that the religion was 100% true. Were that proved to my satisfaction, I would concede the point. But I will never worship the monster portrayed in the Old Testament. I think back to watching Prince of Egypt with my son (my daughter was doing it as a show in high school marching band), and how he sobbed uncontrollably when god murdered the Egyptian firstborn children, and I wonder that anyone worships that monster.

    I’m ADD as well but there is a difference between ADD and ED.

    You think Bobby has Erectile Dysfunction?

    (Kind of joking, but I don’t know what you mean by ED.)

    Heidi | Jul 21, 2009 | Reply

  296. I realize this will probably seem like pot-stirring, but I just want to make a point. There is actually MORE evidence for UFOs/aliens on earth than there is for any religion. Watch

    Heidi | Jul 21, 2009 | Reply

  297. @heidi

    While I don’t have erectile dysfunction, I do have a low tolerance for pricks.

    I see this has all descended into farce, as was intended by the prick, so my hat is off to him for attaining his goal.

    bobby | Jul 21, 2009 | Reply

  298. While I don’t have erectile dysfunction, I do have a low tolerance for pricks.

    LOL.

    Heidi | Jul 21, 2009 | Reply

  299. Actually Heidi, as far as I know Catholic officials have stopped doing that and Catholic theology in general doesn’t approve of pedophilia so those that are pedophiles could be accused of sinning against their faith and/or breaking their vows.

    Just ran across a post on another site that is relevant to the above statement:

    Catholics Still Determined to Conceal Clergy Abuse

    This was posted today. It references an AP article written 4 days ago:

    A Roman Catholic diocese in Connecticut sought Friday to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to keep under wraps sex abuse documents that could shed light on how a prominent retired cardinal handled the allegations.

    I’d say they’re still trying to cover it up, then.

    Heidi | Jul 21, 2009 | Reply

  300. The Church has no vetting process in place to flag paedophiles attempting to join the priesthood, and knows full well that clergy, working for schools and other jobs that have an aura of authority and security about them are highly sought after by those seeking to prey on children, so in that sense they passively encourage the abuse of children. But hey, that’s religion for you, it’s all about preying on the weak.

    Hey, do you suppose that the fact that preying and praying are homonyms has any significance?

    bobby | Jul 21, 2009 | Reply

  301. @pplr

    Stalin never acted “in the name of atheism”

    Stalin acted in the name of Stalin.

    that is the point you do not have the capacity to understand. Stalin never once said “in the name of the lack of any god I will kill this group of people.” He saw organized religion the same way he saw any organized group he did not control, to him it was a threat that may decide to challenge his power. He stomped out all competition for the loyalty of the people.

    As for the people who were first mentioned “by bobby I believe it was” who banded together and killed Xtians in defense of their own beliefs, I know of what he was talking about. there have been numerous uprisings not only in those countries but others as well where atheists have banded together to defend themselves against missionaries or other religious groups imposing their religion as if it were law. Refusing treatment was brought up, and if you wish to admit it or not, that is simply one of the many “tools” many missionary groups use to gain converts. “if you pray to our god, and support out beliefs, we can heal you.”

    WWM | Jul 21, 2009 | Reply

  302. @WWM

    He gets it, believe me. He’s just winding everybody up. It’s what he does. He’s a sad little man with no life.

    In other news I came across a news story today out of Samoa. Don’t know how much you guys know about South Pacific island culture, but they’re all deeply religious. Mostly various denominations of Christianity, and then there’s Rarotonga (Cook Islands), which is Seventh Day Adventist. Anyway, it seems there’s a church in Apia, the capital, that’s right near a hotel. They’re singing on Sunday mornings has gotten so loud that the hotel guests are checking out in disgust. They’ve been sound checked at 83 decibels, which is the equivalent of a jack hammer. There was a lawsuit and the church lost . (Unheard of if Samoa) The church members are now arguing that god will shorten their lives and visit all other manner of horrible things on them because they won’t be singing loud enough on Sunday. And they honestly believe this. No, really.

    bobby | Jul 21, 2009 | Reply

  303. @bobby: Are you sure? According to this, 85dB is closer to city traffic from inside a car.

    That’s still loud, but nowhere near jackhammer level. :P

    blufindr | Jul 22, 2009 | Reply

  304. I thought that was one of the things it was compared to, but I could be wrong. An alarm clock going off in your ear was one, I’m pretty sure. Anyway, I’ve been to a Samoan AOG service (long story) and they’re loud all right.

    bobby | Jul 22, 2009 | Reply

  305. blufindr

    “@pplr: I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I do not think the foetus’s rights should ever override the woman’s, nor that this should even be an issue.”

    We may, but hopefully you see how I and others take our position because not out of a desire to “put women back in their place” as some would say but because we see the situation as unfair and with little in the way of balance between the rights of a mother and fetus/baby.

    “There is a difference between lots, and I mean lots, of reports about the same event. By “same”, I mean, same thing, same time. Not same thing, different times. Until there is as much coverage of ONE religious experience, as there is about various battles or whatever throughout history, I’m not going to put much (if any) stock in reports.”

    If I could I would increase coverage and scientific study of religious experiences to gain greater insight-possibly even proof-as to what is going on. Unfortunately when events have already happened it is hard to do that. Thus, unless there is a breakthrough in the future, we are stuck with the level of evidence available.

    Only 1 religious experience out of all that have been reported has to be real/valid to have an impact on how we understand the supernatural. Are some invalid/made up? Certainly. Are most? Possibly. All of them thoughout human history? I feel like that would be a leap. It may be possible but my thoughts are the odds are less than likely. This is different from popularity (which I was talking about with Heidi) because each of these people functionally serves as a witness and the more witnesses you have claiming they saw something the better the odds for that thing are. Witnesses can be and often are undependable but if I was told someone said something about me by 20 people as opposed to just 1, in my mind the odds that that person actually did say something about me would rise.

    Heidi

    “But is seemed that your reaction was a bit snippy. As if I had insulted you. Did I read too much into that?
    Yes.”

    Ok, enough said.

    “Again, not quite what I said. But yes, that sort of thing does go on. What I mean(t) is that accommodationists are the ones who call outspoken atheists “militant” (just like believers do), and implore us to just shut up and leave things at status quo.”

    I have a sister-in-law that doesn’t talk politics with my mother. They both have strong thoughts and disagree but I think she sees it as a useless fight that will distract from whatever else is going on at the time. Not only does she not bring up her views at family get-togethers but she tries to discourage my brother (whose political leanings match hers to an extent) from talking politics as well. My guess is that she isn’t being “accommodationalist” as much as avoiding arguments so I wouldn’t call her one. In a situation relating to religion, there is a difference between someone who decides to function as missionary to his/her coworkers and someone who may be a believer/member of a religious group but doesn’t generally talk about it unless asked/it comes up in conversation. Are those athiests being called “militant” similar in behavor to the former or latter?

    “You fail to acknowledge that the option chosen by many has been to try to improve the religion.
    Actually, if you re-read what I wrote, I said they decide it’s all metaphor if they don’t like what it says but still want to believe it.
    Many parts of the Bible have parables and metaphors so this is hardly irrational. Am I reading too much into you by guessing you are saying this is a dismissive attitude that people are just trying to ignore (and deciding it is metaphor is the equivalent of that) a problem so they can continue as before?
    Not at all. That’s exactly what they do. The parts they don’t like or that can’t work are metaphor. But the rest is true. Which is which is decided arbitrarily by each group.”

    This does happen but I disagree with the notion it is the only thing that happens-which is an implication of what you said.

    “You compared belief in religion to that of unicorns to say it is ridiculous before. Many people feel the idea of aliens is ridiculous. Thus you were possiblty doing both at once. That is saying religion is as ridiculous a belief as one of aliens existing and belief in aliens is assumed to be ridiculous because many people think so.
    I think you misunderstand the fallacy of appeal to popularity. I made a valid comparison. Many people believe in alien visitations to earth. Many other people don’t, and find the notion quite absurd. The same is true for religion.
    Appeal to popularity, what you did, is to claim that something must be so, because many people believe it to be so. That is not what I did.”

    I’m sure I referred at some point (in my ealier comments) to the number of people who serve as witnesses of a sort. That is different from popularity. Now I did challenge the claim that religion must be viewed as irrational by pointing out that a lot of rational people don’t think so. Claiming that people are irrational when they disagree with a particular idea fails to address the possibilty that rational people may, rationally, come to different conclusions about a given subject.

    “If anyone told me that, in general, saving people’s lives or helping them wasn’t good I would think they were twisted in some way. If that isn’t what you meant than I apologize.
    I’m sorry, but with all due respect I’m calling bullshit and backpedaling on this. I gave an example of what kinds of “good” on which we may not agree:
    And I would venture to guess that many of the things you consider to be “good,” are things I would not consider to be “good.” Mother Theresa comes to mind. I am not a fan.
    And you proceeded to call me “twisted.” Straw. Man.”

    Then please give your example(s) again. But if it says that helping people is bad then I think it would be fair of me to think it is messed up-my apology was/would be in case it doesn’t and I offended you.

    “I may correct her if she did, but I wouldn’t make a big deal out of it.
    This is inconsistent with your very next statement where you make a huge deal of my choice of pronoun.
    Specifically I’m not a “they” nor am I using a “button-pushing tactic”.
    Pronoun usage issues. However, I was not speaking to you, I was generalizing, and IMO, you are using button pushing tactics in some of your arguments, intentionally or not.”

    Were you generallizing about me though? Different conotations with doing that and mistakenly using the wrong pronouns.

    “An atheist group sued the city government of a suburb not far from me and I don’t think the group was even based in-state. Specifically it wanted to get one of the four symbols removed from the city shield because it was a cross. I think there are both religious and atheist camps that nitpick and won’t live and let live.
    I realize that this was not directed toward me, but this is a valid suit based on separation of church and state. It is not legal for government to respect one religion over others. Therefore, it is not legal to have a cross on a government shield.
    That is MUCH different than Big Mama getting cheesed off by a privately owned, privately funded sign she doesn’t like. No one sues churches for putting religious messages on their front lawns. Or on billboards, for that matter.”

    Do atheists have something against flags then that have an at least puesdo religious symbol on it? I can think of at least a few nations that do. If you are either forcing or generally funding conversions that is one thing. But you are talking about running around forcing people to change symbols (and pay for doing so) that have been that way for years upon years and aren’t pushing anyone’s belief one way or another. I’m not muslim, but if I visit somewhere and get upset because I see a crescent on the flag there (and some nations have one) at some point I would ask if I was being overly senative.

    “Blufindr or Heidi, have you known Bobby for long? And does he have emotional problems (moreso than the usual)?
    Nope. Just met him in this thread. But his “emotional” issues sound to me a lot like “I have heard this script before. I keep answering it, and I am no longer amused.”’

    If that were true I would say repeating something that is inaccurate doesn’t make it accurate. But I doubt he is simply tired of repeating himself because he (of the 5 of us that have been discussing since I came by) seems to be doing the least explaining of his position per comment and the most insulting.

    “Heidi, please go back and look over his comments before you buy into them.
    I have no idea if you’re here to purposely disrupt or destroy. But I have had experience with the kind of people who are, such as the one to which Bobby referred. That is what I meant by that statement.”

    Then that stands clarified.

    “I do wonder what you and other Christians expect to accomplish coming into threads like this on atheist websites, though. (I single out Christians because I have never had a similar experience with anyone from any non-Christian faith.) If you’re hoping for conversions, at least in my case there is nothing that will ever make me a Christian. Flat. Out. Nothing. That includes proof that the religion was 100% true. Were that proved to my satisfaction, I would concede the point. But I will never worship the monster portrayed in the Old Testament. I think back to watching Prince of Egypt with my son (my daughter was doing it as a show in high school marching band), and how he sobbed uncontrollably when god murdered the Egyptian firstborn children, and I wonder that anyone worships that monster.”

    My bet is that since this is an English language website most of the dicussion here relates to Christians from the USA using English to talk. So there are the odds. Yes many people around the world speak English but I suspect they are often doing something else online when they do use it online. Simple odds guess. I first started posting because not only did I come across this site but I thought it had a biased and missrepresentative commentary. If you came across a site subtly blaming atheism for everything that is bad or nasty you would feel that it was both inaccurate and insulting (to at least a degree) and thus feel an urge to comment or correct it, am I right?

    “I’m ADD as well but there is a difference between ADD and ED.
    You think Bobby has Erectile Dysfunction?
    (Kind of joking, but I don’t know what you mean by ED.)”’

    Thankyou, thats funny. I didn’t mean it that way and I know alot of guys would be insulted by it but Bobby has gone out of his way to intentionally insult so often he kinda earned it.

    I actually meant ED as in Emotional Disability. It is a term used by public schools systems within my state (and I’m guessing others as well).

    “I realize this will probably seem like pot-stirring, but I just want to make a point. There is actually MORE evidence for UFOs/aliens on earth than there is for any religion. Watch”

    I met someone who had dated a girl years ago, had a sudden urge to call this girl while he was in not just a different state, but a location where cell phones didn’t work. He tried his cell phone and it worked just then and she said she felt an urge to talk to him about the same time. They married later. That may be evidence of the supernatural or just getting lucky within a calling locale. But it was a story that seemed to be told in all seriousness.

    There are people who claim to have photos of ghosts and so on. Unless it is manifactured it can count as much as evidence as the claims about UFOs do. Until someone does a tally I won’t say which has “more evidence”, at least with certitude. Ditto for religious experiences.

    Though a couple of points come to mind that may matter in the media labelling. Is there evidence going back thousands of years people believed-in notable numbers-that there were aliens (evidence of believers this time rather than their beliefs)? Is there a better term in common usage for people that believe and have conventions about UFO stories at this time than “buffs”?

    On Bobby’s next comment

    “I see this has all descended into farce” indicates trying to be high minded until “as was intended by the prick” comes along and the act there was fades. Like I said before, Bobby has done less arguing or even explaining his point and more insulting than any of us when we make a comment.

    “Actually Heidi, as far as I know Catholic officials have stopped doing that and Catholic theology in general doesn’t approve of pedophilia so those that are pedophiles could be accused of sinning against their faith and/or breaking their vows.
    Just ran across a post on another site that is relevant to the above statement:
    Catholics Still Determined to Conceal Clergy Abuse
    This was posted today. It references an AP article written 4 days ago:
    A Roman Catholic diocese in Connecticut sought Friday to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to keep under wraps sex abuse documents that could shed light on how a prominent retired cardinal handled the allegations.
    I’d say they’re still trying to cover it up, then.”

    I never stamped my approval on the pedophilia problem. But what I did say is that I thought it stopped in (most if not all of the) USA. Either it has and now a diocese is trying to put a lid on the evidence of what already happened (and thus the number of court cases that follow) or it is trying to cover up continuing activity in terms of letting pedophilies run amok. I would say this is a sign of an organization that doesn’t want to publically own up to what it has done but not, unless this year and the past few years were included in what it tried to keep under wrapps, continuing to let pedophiles have access to children.

    “The Church has no vetting process in place to flag paedophiles attempting to join the priesthood, and knows full well that clergy, working for schools and other jobs that have an aura of authority and security about them are highly sought after by those seeking to prey on children, so in that sense they passively encourage the abuse of children. But hey, that’s religion for you, it’s all about preying on the weak.
    Hey, do you suppose that the fact that preying and praying are homonyms has any significance?”

    I think the local archdiocese here actually did institute a vetting process on its new seminarians. I think I remember reading about it in the local news at some point. This could be a problem with local vs world/Church wide authority & responsibilities in that different places handle issues differently. Though you may be are right about the general need for a vetting process as I have heard the comment that pedophiles are attracted to the priesthood because of the possiblities that come with the job like bullies are to police forces.

    WMM

    “Stalin never acted “in the name of atheism”
    Stalin acted in the name of Stalin.
    that is the point you do not have the capacity to understand. Stalin never once said “in the name of the lack of any god I will kill this group of people.” He saw organized religion the same way he saw any organized group he did not control, to him it was a threat that may decide to challenge his power. He stomped out all competition for the loyalty of the people.”

    One of the comments I made before was that if a leader tried to forcibly convert his people, or a “peoples” he conquered, to a religious belief (or lack of one in this case) that leader and his actions belong in the history of that belief or lack of one.

    I also pointed out that this was related to communism as a whole rather than only Stalin-there are communist states where he never had control that tried to discriminate against and/or suppress religious beliefs.

    I even started to draw an alusion between organized religion and the horrors it can bring, and has at times, and what could be defined as organized atheism and its potential to bring similar horrors, including the murders that already have occurred durring suppression of religions .

    “As for the people who were first mentioned “by bobby I believe it was” who banded together and killed Xtians in defense of their own beliefs, I know of what he was talking about. there have been numerous uprisings not only in those countries but others as well where atheists have banded together to defend themselves against missionaries or other religious groups imposing their religion as if it were law. Refusing treatment was brought up, and if you wish to admit it or not, that is simply one of the many “tools” many missionary groups use to gain converts. “if you pray to our god, and support out beliefs, we can heal you.”’

    There is a huge difference between a rebellion against a state enforced religion so you can have your own freedom to believe it or not and telling other people that they must give up their’s or get treated worse than you are and possibly even be killed.

    And since Bobby made his comments after I brought up suppression of religion by force I think it is fair to say he was referring to it. Especially as at no point did he say he was, just refering to a situation of state imposed religion somewhere.

    I’m pretty sure I already gave my thoughts on the topic of missionaries. But it goes like this, if you don’t believe then don’t believe. But don’t try to attack or kill them for believing something other than you and wanting to talk about it because that is suppression.

    And I think someone who pleads for aid shouldn’t be turned away just because the person has different thoughts on religion. That is a topic that did come up and I addressed it. But it definitely was not the whole or even majority of what we were discussing at the time.

    “He gets it, believe me. He’s just winding everybody up. It’s what he does. He’s a sad little man with no life.”

    More assumptions on Bobby’s part about my motives combined with an insult. Hardly out of pattern for Bobby. Does anyone see why I suggested ED? I could be wrong but there were reasons for the suggestion.

    “In other news I came across a news story today out of Samoa. Don’t know how much you guys know about South Pacific island culture, but they’re all deeply religious. Mostly various denominations of Christianity, and then there’s Rarotonga (Cook Islands), which is Seventh Day Adventist. Anyway, it seems there’s a church in Apia, the capital, that’s right near a hotel. They’re singing on Sunday mornings has gotten so loud that the hotel guests are checking out in disgust. They’ve been sound checked at 83 decibels, which is the equivalent of a jack hammer. There was a lawsuit and the church lost . (Unheard of if Samoa) The church members are now arguing that god will shorten their lives and visit all other manner of horrible things on them because they won’t be singing loud enough on Sunday. And they honestly believe this. No, really.”

    Hardly representative of all Christianity, and I don’t have a problem with the guests suing as it was actually affecting them as they were likely trying to sleep in rooms they paid for. It steps over a line of live and let live/general courtesy.

    pplr | Jul 22, 2009 | Reply

  306. Are those athiests being called “militant” similar in behavor to the former or latter?

    The answer to your leading question is, no. Their are not like either group. The best analogy I’ve found is that outspoken atheists who are considered militant are the Malcolm X to people like Tyson’s Dr. King. No one is trying to convert anyone to atheism, any more than Malcolm X was trying to turn white people black. We just want our rights, our respect, and to be left out of religion. And we’re not going to shut up about it.

    I’m sure I referred at some point (in my ealier comments) to the number of people who serve as witnesses of a sort. That is different from popularity. Now I did challenge the claim that religion must be viewed as irrational by pointing out that a lot of rational people don’t think so. Claiming that people are irrational when they disagree with a particular idea fails to address the possibilty that rational people may, rationally, come to different conclusions about a given subject.

    I think I’m not following your point here, but I’ll try to respond anyway. UFO/alien believers has far more evidence than religious believers. There is not one photograph, video, etc. of a religious experience unless you count when someone sees the virgin Mary in a piece of toast (in which case, then Michael Jackson is as holy as she is, since someone saw him in a tree stump a few days after he died). But there are video, photographic and radar records of alien/UFO sightings. So which one is more likely to be real? And yet…

    Do atheists have something against flags then that have an at least puesdo religious symbol on it? I can think of at least a few nations that do. If you are either forcing or generally funding conversions that is one thing. But you are talking about running around forcing people to change symbols (and pay for doing so) that have been that way for years upon years and aren’t pushing anyone’s belief one way or another. I’m not muslim, but if I visit somewhere and get upset because I see a crescent on the flag there (and some nations have one) at some point I would ask if I was being overly senative.

    You know, religious apologists often remind me of lawyers or poll writers. And you, in particular are reminding me of them now. Because you ask these questions in a way that you are leading the answer, expecting to make me say what you want to hear. I’m not playing that game. Sorry if I disappoint.

    I have no problem with the flags, symbols, or what have you in other countries. That is their problem, not mine. I have no problem with religious symbology that is privately funded and on private property (e.g. church property). I have every problem with such things in a government-sponsored capacity in the United States. It is illegal. Are you saying you support illegal activities in the name of the government promoting one religion over all others? (See, this is how leading questions work.)

    I never stamped my approval on the pedophilia problem. But what I did say is that I thought it stopped in (most if not all of the) USA.

    Right. And I was saying that this appears not to be the case.

    I sort of skimmed over the rest of your post, as it was not directed toward me. But I do have to comment on one thing.

    Hardly representative of all Christianity

    There’s the thing. What exactly *is* representative of *all* Christianity? Nothing. There are Christians who don’t even believe in the divinity of Jesus, and treat him as a human leader/prophet kind of person. So no matter what good or bad thing anyone ever says about Christianity, you could quite easily say that it’s hardly representative of all Christianity. In which case, I feel like the statement is meaningless.

    Heidi | Jul 22, 2009 | Reply

  307. Apologies for the typos. My fingernails get caught in the keyboard sometimes, and other times… ADD.

    Heidi | Jul 22, 2009 | Reply

  308. are you sure it isn’t ED? I hear there’s a lot of that going around. Or maybe that’s just projection..

    bobby | Jul 22, 2009 | Reply

  309. Pretty sure. Female. But then I don’t have *any* erectile function, so I guess it depends on how you define it. ;-)

    Crap, I missed the middle of his post. Now I have to type more… sigh.

    Heidi | Jul 22, 2009 | Reply

  310. Then please give your example(s) again.

    My example was that I am not a fan of Mother Theresa, but that many Christians seem to be. I don’t approve of her actions. I also said that I don’t want to get into a debate about her. I will not answer questions in that vein, if that’s where you’re going with this.

    Were you generallizing about me though?

    Are you general?

    If that were true I would say repeating something that is inaccurate doesn’t make it accurate. But I doubt he is simply tired of repeating himself because he (of the 5 of us that have been discussing since I came by) seems to be doing the least explaining of his position per comment and the most insulting.

    I think he’s not explaining at all because he’s been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Not necessarily in this thread, but probably in many, many others.

    My bet is that since this is an English language website most of the dicussion here relates to Christians from the USA using English to talk.

    I feel like that’s pretty American-centric. Blufindr isn’t in the US. On other sites about other topics I run into lots of European people, many of whom have English as a second or third language. And their English skills are usually pretty great. I also run into people from Central and South America, and sometimes Asia. (I think most Asian languages English is a more difficult transition.) I’ve also run into plenty of people from Australia and New Zealand, and a few people from South Africa. All on English-speaking U.S.-based sites.

    If you came across a site subtly blaming atheism for everything that is bad or nasty you would feel that it was both inaccurate and insulting (to at least a degree) and thus feel an urge to comment or correct it, am I right?

    Actually, no, you’re not. I’ve only ever posted once on a Christian website. That was in response to a statement that Christians are to blame for atheists not believing, ostensibly because they didn’t hound us enough or live up to our expectations or something. And I said, no, lack of evidence is to blame for me not believing. And I suggested that they should try not to make everything about themselves. I didn’t hang around, didn’t go back, didn’t argue. I just let them know that, at least in my case, they were incorrect. And then I went back about my business.

    I actually meant ED as in Emotional Disability. It is a term used by public schools systems within my state (and I’m guessing others as well).

    Oh, ok. I’ve never heard of that term.

    There are people who claim to have photos of ghosts and so on. Unless it is manifactured it can count as much as evidence as the claims about UFOs do.

    I agree.

    Until someone does a tally I won’t say which has “more evidence”, at least with certitude. Ditto for religious experiences.

    Can you think of a single piece of photographic, videographic, or audio evidence for religion? I can think of a bunch of them (some hoaxes, others misinterpretations) for the Loch Ness Monster. Or Bigfoot. But not one single case of “look, a god visited me and I took his/her/its blurry photo.”

    Though a couple of points come to mind that may matter in the media labelling. Is there evidence going back thousands of years people believed-in notable numbers-that there were aliens (evidence of believers this time rather than their beliefs)?

    Yep. All the way back to cave paintings you can find things that look like UFOs in artwork. This includes Christian artwork. Look here.

    I think I got everything I missed. If I didn’t, sorry. ADD + long post = not going to see everything.

    Heidi | Jul 22, 2009 | Reply

  311. Hi y’all.
    Wow, this is some thread. It’s really fun to just sit and read through it. I see some interesting things going on. One trend seems to be that some folks get caught up in semantics. This can be a real problem as it makes getting a point across dependent on the readers slant on understanding what they think you are saying. I, for instance, often forget to precede a statement with saying: “my opinion is…” which, semantically, is saying- “this is what I hope you are seeing”. It can get strange as a lot of folks, myself included, have a hard time expressing myself by writing. Usually, when I argue or try to make a point with someone, I prefer to do it in person as I use a ton of body language. This is tough to do when writing. I think we all unconsciously send semantic messages when we talk in person. It just seems easier to get the point across when you can – shrug, look down, nod, raise you arms, wiggle a hand. These are all ‘messages’ we have learned as we go through life. They are also universal, in that these subliminal body movements transcend languages. All humans seem to do it to one extent or another. Ever watch some Italians argue ? It’s all about body language. My point is this— when you write and some folks don’t “get it”, keep trying. Change “how” you say it or try a, hopefully, universal metaphor. But always try to preclude a statement of fact or an opinion with something so you lead the reader in the right direction. I have seen multiple examples of folks saying the exact same thing and then arguing over who said it right. Hmmmm…..
    Here is an example: using Hitler as an example of a “bad” atheist. I think we all would agree that Hitler was a “bad” man (at least from a premise that he would probably try to take over Europe, if not the world and that his philosophy seemed a tad un-American). It’s my opinion that whether or not he was an atheist is irrelevant. There does not seem to be sufficient evidence that his Nazi “formula” for an Aryan world was atheistic at all. Seems to me that Nazism fulfills the criteria for being a religion in itself. But this is an opinion based on what I’ve read about the Nazi mandate. But that doesn’t make it a fact; just an opinion.

    What I am hoping you will see is that we all seem to work from our own opinions- based on facts AND based on our own perceptions and even some common sense. Human beings are also very susceptible to believing anything that we are told if the person telling us is someone we respect, understand, or even idolize (John Lennon, anyone ?). Always be careful about what you assume to be a fact. (…like how we got into the Iraq war.. seems we were lied to about WMD’s and may never “really” know the TRUTH.)

    This makes religion a madhouse to discuss. It’s full of “stories”, misinterpretations, poor translations, fantasies, very creative writing, and- yes, some actual facts- and it all happened over 2000 years ago !!. Trying to sort through it all and come up with- THE TRUTH is virtually impossible.
    That, in a nutshell, is why I assume my identity as an atheist. It’s easier to just ignore it all and live a happy and productive life anyway. I have quite decent morals. My Mom and Dad didn’t use religion to “train” me. They used an evil piece of thin wood or a belt. Worked wonders for determining right from wrong. There is also the law to think about. Our laws, in America, are generally a consensus of what our society has decided is good or not good. I could care less if these laws “may” have a basis in religion, they are still the laws we live by. That’s OK by me. I don’t need the threat of hell or damnation to make me be good. Ten to fifteen in prison is a wonderful deterrent. So, as far as I am concerned the argument that atheists “can’t” have morals is invalid and borders on stupid. Are atheists influenced by religion ?? Yes, of course we are. How can you reject something unless you have at least “some” working knowledge of it? A lot of atheists were at one time quite religious…. then they grew up and started thinking for themselves. (<— my opinion)

    Well, I had fun showing off how clever I am. Isn't that what we all at least attempt to do ?
    Hope you got something out of it. Hope I inspired someone. Hope I get flamed (or I didn't do it right !—LOL)

    Richard N | Jul 22, 2009 | Reply

  312. @pplr: Perhaps I wasn’t exactly clear with my last comment. My general stance on abortion is that while it isn’t necessarily the right thing to do in many cases (for example, for the woman who stubbornly refuses to use any prophylactics, yet wants to continue having sex and not be a mother), the foetus’s rights are never an issue. Until it is able to survive outside the human body, I do not consider it as anything more than a parasite. To me, coercing women to continue being hosts is nothing more than suppression. Simple as that. More so because there is no equality in this kind of parenting. After all, no obligation of care is upon the father, whereas a degree of care (to protect the self and unborn ‘human’) is inflicted on the woman throughout her pregnancy.

    Just because something would be a leap, doesn’t mean it is completely unlikely. For me, the belief that there is a supernatural being is a greater leap than the belief that people are (whether intentionally or not) bullshitting about their religious experiences. Simply because something is common, does not make it true. I think this is the distinction that you’re not quite grasping.

    @Heidi: Yes, Asian languages tend to have a very different structure to many European languages (including English).

    (I’m Viet. English is my second language.)

    blufindr | Jul 22, 2009 | Reply

  313. @blufindr: Wow, I never would have known English wasn’t your first language. You have excellent fluency.

    I have a friend in Paris who speaks fluent French (1st language) and English and from what I gather she’s pretty good with Japanese. She always says that English is easier to learn because all the movies are in English. lol.

    I always find it terribly impressive when people are multilingual. I spent 5 years in AP Spanish in middle and high school, and I barely remember any of it. I wish I’d kept up practicing it.

    Heidi | Jul 22, 2009 | Reply

  314. I’m guessing you aren’t surrounded by people who speak other languages. I’ve been all over the world, and Americans, Canadians, Brits, Australians and Kiwis are the least multi-lingual people there are. Fortunately there always seem to be people who speak English wherever I go, so it’s never been more than a minor inconvienence, even in China.

    bobby | Jul 22, 2009 | Reply

  315. blufindr

    “@pplr: Perhaps I wasn’t exactly clear with my last comment. My general stance on abortion is that while it isn’t necessarily the right thing to do in many cases (for example, for the woman who stubbornly refuses to use any prophylactics, yet wants to continue having sex and not be a mother), the foetus’s rights are never an issue. Until it is able to survive outside the human body, I do not consider it as anything more than a parasite. To me, coercing women to continue being hosts is nothing more than suppression.”

    And ending all the possibilities/opportunities someone has is what then? I’m not saying this is a good thing for the mother. But what I am saying is that this can end up being a far worse thing for someone else if the other option is used.

    “More so because there is no equality in this kind of parenting. After all, no obligation of care is upon the father, whereas a degree of care (to protect the self and unborn ‘human’) is inflicted on the woman throughout her pregnancy.”

    If there is a proposal for putting obligations on the father I can support it. As much equality as can be arranged within the realm of the sensible (no surgery to switch gender parts about 4-5 months in) is fine. I’m not against equality between women and men. I do care about the thusfar unprotected 3rd party.

    “Just because something would be a leap, doesn’t mean it is completely unlikely. For me, the belief that there is a supernatural being is a greater leap than the belief that people are (whether intentionally or not) bullshitting about their religious experiences. Simply because something is common, does not make it true. I think this is the distinction that you’re not quite grasping.”

    If you think the odds are different than I do you can feel so for rational reasons. I laid out my set of odds for my own rational reasons. Like I said, 2 rational people can disagree about the same thing.

    “Yes, Asian languages tend to have a very different structure to many European languages (including English).
    (I’m Viet. English is my second language.)”

    You do type good English. Though I think Heidi missed it when I said many people throughout the world knew English. When you give what the other person said a quick lookover things can get missed.

    Heidi

    “Are those athiests being called “militant” similar in behavor to the former or latter?
    The answer to your leading question is, no. Their are not like either group. The best analogy I’ve found is that outspoken atheists who are considered militant are the Malcolm X to people like Tyson’s Dr. King. No one is trying to convert anyone to atheism, any more than Malcolm X was trying to turn white people black. We just want our rights, our respect, and to be left out of religion. And we’re not going to shut up about it.”

    I asked that because I was trying to guess what you meant by “militant” and the closest I guessed was someone who just wouldn’t stop talking about an issue (be it political, theological, personal, or whatever).

    That said, you really aren’t that badly off in terms of rights. There was a Jewish artist in New York who had just finished talking a little bit about the Holocaust and when asked about how he felt as a Jewish person his response was something like this: “I live in the bosom of a wealthy empire that protects me. I am the spoiled brat of my people.”
    Malcolm X and Martin Luther King had to deal with some very real, unfair, and sometimes violent issues going on throughout this nation (sometimes with different themes being attached to different geographies). By and large nobody in this nation is stopping you from voting, getting home or car loans (you would otherwise able to get), encouraging police to harrass you, threatening to call immigration authorities on you or your family, you can marry and or adopt, and odds are you can get a taxi when most other people your gender or ethnic group can. In other parts of the world there may be atheists who would be taking their life into their hands if they try to make their thoughts known. They do have my sympathies because that is deeply unfair. But here, in the modern USA, you are about as safe, enfranchised, and entitled as anyone. While there may be some places here where you would face some discrimination not only would others face the same (like where I wouldn’t be allowed to work), the list of problems other groups of people have to deal with unfairly is probably longer and harsher.

    I looked at this after I wrote it and maybe I got ranty or lecturing but I feel like I’ve met people who have been in a tougher spot than you are, it isn’t without reason but sorry if I came on too strong.

    “I’m sure I referred at some point (in my ealier comments) to the number of people who serve as witnesses of a sort. That is different from popularity. Now I did challenge the claim that religion must be viewed as irrational by pointing out that a lot of rational people don’t think so. Claiming that people are irrational when they disagree with a particular idea fails to address the possibilty that rational people may, rationally, come to different conclusions about a given subject.
    I think I’m not following your point here, but I’ll try to respond anyway. UFO/alien believers has far more evidence than religious believers. There is not one photograph, video, etc. of a religious experience unless you count when someone sees the virgin Mary in a piece of toast (in which case, then Michael Jackson is as holy as she is, since someone saw him in a tree stump a few days after he died). But there are video, photographic and radar records of alien/UFO sightings. So which one is more likely to be real? And yet…”

    &

    “Can you think of a single piece of photographic, videographic, or audio evidence for religion? I can think of a bunch of them (some hoaxes, others misinterpretations) for the Loch Ness Monster. Or Bigfoot. But not one single case of “look, a god visited me and I took his/her/its blurry photo.”

    If there was a chance to catch a Jesus doing a miracle on tape that I knew about/had access to I would have done it. I never said I was against better and more evidence, just that it wasn’t always available. There may be video or a photo of a statue of Mary crying blood or some such thing. Not sure I’d put credibility in it or not (the last photo related to bigfoot I read about in the papers was reportedly fake).

    But my point wasn’t about the type of evidence, just that different people can rationally look at it and rationally come to different conclusions about the odds related to it.

    “Do atheists have something against flags then that have an at least puesdo religious symbol on it? I can think of at least a few nations that do. If you are either forcing or generally funding conversions that is one thing. But you are talking about running around forcing people to change symbols (and pay for doing so) that have been that way for years upon years and aren’t pushing anyone’s belief one way or another. I’m not muslim, but if I visit somewhere and get upset because I see a crescent on the flag there (and some nations have one) at some point I would ask if I was being overly senative.
    You know, religious apologists often remind me of lawyers or poll writers. And you, in particular are reminding me of them now. Because you ask these questions in a way that you are leading the answer, expecting to make me say what you want to hear. I’m not playing that game. Sorry if I disappoint.
    I have no problem with the flags, symbols, or what have you in other countries. That is their problem, not mine. I have no problem with religious symbology that is privately funded and on private property (e.g. church property). I have every problem with such things in a government-sponsored capacity in the United States. It is illegal. Are you saying you support illegal activities in the name of the government promoting one religion over all others? (See, this is how leading questions work.)”

    I ask questions but I also have points to make. I was saying sometimes things may not be legally sound but going after them both helps nobody and causes a headache. In specific I also doubt that anyone saw the unchanged shield and decided to go be Christian because of it. If a government is funding misionary activities I can have a problem with it. If it is paying the salary for religious officials I would have some questions about it except for specific situations (a military chaplain so people have the option available to go visit one-not required to but an option as military situations can be very intense for people and leave a person in need of someone to talk to) I can have a problem with it. But at some point, especially when you are talking about things that are long-standing rather than fending off a judge trying to pull a 10 commandments type stunt, a cost-benefit analysis should be done.

    I apologize to some for my generalizing in the first sentence I didn’t catch myself after I wrote it and I’m sure atheists don’t all go about doing the same things/actions.

    “I never stamped my approval on the pedophilia problem. But what I did say is that I thought it stopped in (most if not all of the) USA.
    Right. And I was saying that this appears not to be the case.”

    Could be and we just don’t know it yet. What I referred to asked what in specific had they done in the article. Never claimed it was proper but keeping old secrets that should get aired is different from creating new victims of sexual abuse.

    “Hardly representative of all Christianity
    There’s the thing. What exactly *is* representative of *all* Christianity? Nothing. There are Christians who don’t even believe in the divinity of Jesus, and treat him as a human leader/prophet kind of person. So no matter what good or bad thing anyone ever says about Christianity, you could quite easily say that it’s hardly representative of all Christianity. In which case, I feel like the statement is meaningless.”’

    But if Christianity is so varied then don’t have problems with it as a whole, point out those groups within it you do have issues with but in specific. Some of the comments I’ve seen here try to darken a very very broad and varied group of people with specific actions done by a minority. The focus should be on the minority but the implication isn’t always.

    “Then please give your example(s) again.
    My example was that I am not a fan of Mother Theresa, but that many Christians seem to be. I don’t approve of her actions. I also said that I don’t want to get into a debate about her. I will not answer questions in that vein, if that’s where you’re going with this.”

    Alright, if you don’t want to talk about it I’ll try not push the issue or bring it up again beyond asking you to let me have my thoughts go uncriticized about this matter when I cannot criticize in return.

    “Were you generallizing about me though?
    Are you general?”

    I sometimes fit into a category and I’m sometimes pushed into one by others, depends on POV.

    “If that were true I would say repeating something that is inaccurate doesn’t make it accurate. But I doubt he is simply tired of repeating himself because he (of the 5 of us that have been discussing since I came by) seems to be doing the least explaining of his position per comment and the most insulting.
    I think he’s not explaining at all because he’s been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Not necessarily in this thread, but probably in many, many others.”

    Possible, not sure it is likely.

    But if it actually is true and he isn’t going to do the one he really shouldn’t even get close to doing the other. If I talk to someone about something one day and run into someone else the next I don’t expect the second person to know what I told the first.

    “My bet is that since this is an English language website most of the dicussion here relates to Christians from the USA using English to talk.
    I feel like that’s pretty American-centric. Blufindr isn’t in the US. On other sites about other topics I run into lots of European people, many of whom have English as a second or third language. And their English skills are usually pretty great. I also run into people from Central and South America, and sometimes Asia. (I think most Asian languages English is a more difficult transition.) I’ve also run into plenty of people from Australia and New Zealand, and a few people from South Africa. All on English-speaking U.S.-based sites.”

    You missed this (which was the very next sentence): Yes many people around the world speak English but I suspect they are often doing something else online when they do use it online.

    I didn’t express any doubts about other people’s ability to speak English. What I did say is they weren’t coming here. I’ve blogged with people online from other nations too. But what I gave was a guess at why they weren’t at this particular website. 2 different things.

    “If you came across a site subtly blaming atheism for everything that is bad or nasty you would feel that it was both inaccurate and insulting (to at least a degree) and thus feel an urge to comment or correct it, am I right?
    Actually, no, you’re not. I’ve only ever posted once on a Christian website. That was in response to a statement that Christians are to blame for atheists not believing, ostensibly because they didn’t hound us enough or live up to our expectations or something. And I said, no, lack of evidence is to blame for me not believing. And I suggested that they should try not to make everything about themselves. I didn’t hang around, didn’t go back, didn’t argue. I just let them know that, at least in my case, they were incorrect. And then I went back about my business.”

    I guess we are different then. Though one of the things about being online is being open to others reading about and responding to what is said.

    “I actually meant ED as in Emotional Disability. It is a term used by public schools systems within my state (and I’m guessing others as well).
    Oh, ok. I’ve never heard of that term.”

    Thanks again your take it was funny…. not sure I should repeat it to anyone in a high school setting though.

    “Though a couple of points come to mind that may matter in the media labelling. Is there evidence going back thousands of years people believed-in notable numbers-that there were aliens (evidence of believers this time rather than their beliefs)?
    Yep. All the way back to cave paintings you can find things that look like UFOs in artwork. This includes Christian artwork. Look here.”

    Creationists are right, they just missed the direct source of the workmanship lol.

    Sorry if that doesn’t go over as intended. To the actual point I think it may simply then be size of following and the list of readily available names that are issues.

    “I think I got everything I missed. If I didn’t, sorry. ADD + long post = not going to see everything.”

    It happens, cannot claim to always catch everything myself.

    pplr | Jul 23, 2009 | Reply

  316. @Heidi: Haha, yeah, I first learnt English like a decade ago, (I’m 17) so it’s not like it’s a recent transition.

    @pplr: Foetus = clump of cells. That is the definition it holds in my head. It is, in my mind, only vaguely related to humans. There are few options for something that relies entirely on another being to survive.

    “Thusfar unprotected”? Um, look at all the kids that are already in foster care, marked as requiring care by the authorities and not receiving it, and generally being used and abused by their parents. I’d say being in the womb, or being non-existent, is really great protection against the perils of the big wide world.

    There is no way to definitively determine fatherhood, nor is there a way to enforce care. In this matter, there can be no equality until the woman can walk away from her pregnancy as the man can.

    blufindr | Jul 23, 2009 | Reply

  317. @bobby:I’m guessing you aren’t surrounded by people who speak other languages. I’ve been all over the world, and Americans, Canadians, Brits, Australians and Kiwis are the least multi-lingual people there are.

    I live in New England. You know how far I’d have to go to be somewhere where the main language isn’t English? lol. Quebec is bi-lingual, but the closest place that’s non-English is Mexico, AFAIK. So a couple thousand miles. Although we lived near San Diego when I was little, and my parents managed to get along just fine at the little shops in Tijuana without knowing any Spanish.

    I had this conversation once with a British friend and the Parisian friend I mentioned. People who don’t speak English see a language they don’t understand, and want to learn it so they can communicate with other people (for the most part). People who only speak English see a language they don’t understand, and freak. ;-)

    pplr:You do type good English. Though I think Heidi missed it when I said many people throughout the world knew English. When you give what the other person said a quick lookover things can get missed.

    Actually, I didn’t miss that at all. I was saying that while online I come into contact with many people around the world, who have many different languages and religions, and yet it’s still only Christians who come into atheist forums to argue.

    Also, when you’re having a long OT debate that I don’t much care to join, I skip those bits. *shrug*

    But if you’d like me to comment on the abortion topic, raise your hand if you’ve ever been pregnant. Mine is raised. Now put it down if you’ve never had an unplanned pregnancy. Mine is still up. I was 19. I was in college. I can’t begin to stress how much easier it was, and how much safer I felt knowing that abortion was an option. I didn’t have one. But having the option to abort helped me to feel like this was actually a decision I could make, and not one that was forced on me.

    By choosing not to abort, I got to spend 8 months with all-day sickness (my daughter was born a month early). “Morning” sickness my ass. I was so sick that I’d lost weight one month when I went to the doctor. He was concerned enough to have me pick up some kind of sugary syrup thing called Emetrol, which I promptly threw up.

    I damaged my back. I already had scoliosis, and pregnancy just messed it up some more. Plus I didn’t start labor naturally; my water broke a month before my due date, and I was induced. I have IV fear (PTSD), so that was particularly fun. My contractions were so strong from being induced, that they gave me epidural anesthesia. Everybody had to leave the room who wasn’t me. They had me sit up, and bent me in half. Their conversation went like this: “ooh, she’s shaking like a leaf!” “Ok, ready.” Large sharp needle inserted into back. ow. “Oops. We missed. Try again.” Large needle comes out. Large needle goes back in again somewhere else.

    My body has never been the same since pregnancy. What pro-life men seem unable to grasp, is that it isn’t just lah-dee-dah, inconvenience, adoption, as you were. Your body changes permanently. I am an adopted person, and I was born before Roe v. Wade. I am told my bio mother was 15. And I often wonder if she was forced to carry me, and how it affected her life. I’m glad to be here, but on the other hand part of me is truly horrified at the possibility that I’m only here because some 15 year-old kid didn’t have a choice as to what to do with her own body.

    I also have a son, who was planned, and who just turned 17. The experience of a planned pregnancy is FAR different than an unplanned one. But I was still sick for six months straight, and my back got even worse. Plus, of course, I carried my daughter high and my son low, so my whole abdomen is covered with stretch marks. Which is lovely. Today my back is such a mess that I have trouble standing long enough to take a shower or go to the grocery store. My doctor keeps telling me to take Alleve as an anti-inflammatory, and I do, but it doesn’t really do anything.

    Anyway, IMO, abortion MUST be an option, and men shouldn’t have a single word to say about it until they can carry the baby themselves and permanently wreck their own bodies. Been there, done that. Anyway, that’s pretty much all I have to say on the topic.

    That said, you really aren’t that badly off in terms of rights.

    Holy shit, are you seriously that naive? We can’t put up a sign telling each other we’re not alone without Big Mama having a protest.

    People have been fired for unbelief. Amanda Donaldson, for example. She was fired from a Christian chiropractor’s office for non-belief.

    More information about Amanda’s case.

    Or how about this story told to Richard Dawkins about police abuse of an atheist?

    Atheists can’t realistically expect to run for president. God is on the money. God is quite possibly about to be carved into the Capitol building. God is in the pledge of allegiance. All this adds up to “your opinion is not wanted. Your voice does not matter.”

    Then there’s this cute little anecdote that Christians passed around a few years back. I doubt that it actually happened, but the fact that it was smugly passed around is pretty damning.

    Or this guy who thinks discrimination against “open” atheists “one who proudly displays their atheist belief with a bumper sticker” is justified.

    And there was that widespread e-mail forward after 9/11 about how we as Americans don’t give a crap about the people in the middle east, because we are all a bunch of Christians here, and they are not, rah, rah go team USA! Not specifically anti-atheist, but I am certainly not a Christian, and I do care about all people. A woman I know posted it on a private work forum, and the workplace fundie guy got all Hell yeah! Our European co-workers were not amused.

    A bunch more discrimination stories

    Or how about this one? An Oklahoma girl had to leave school because of her lack of beliefs and her refusal to participate in public school-sponsored religion. Watch this girl break down in tears and then tell me again that we don’t have it so bad.

    Not sure I’d put credibility in it or not (the last photo related to bigfoot I read about in the papers was reportedly fake).

    As was the film of the guy in the fur suit. But even though it was a hoax, you did read about it. I have yet to read about anyone having religious photos. And, rather like Bigfoot and lake monsters, any time anybody purports to have physical evidence, it turns out it was faked (Shroud of Turin, James’s ossuary).

    But my point wasn’t about the type of evidence,

    Mine was, so I believe we are at an impasse there.

    I was saying sometimes things may not be legally sound but going after them both helps nobody and causes a headache.

    It helps me to feel like my opinion and rights are valued in our society, so there’s that debunked.

    In specific I also doubt that anyone saw the unchanged shield and decided to go be Christian because of it.

    That doesn’t make it legal. If I go around drunk driving, even if I don’t kill anybody, I’m still breaking the law. I suspect you would feel differently if the government-sponsored symbols were pagan or Satanic.

    But if Christianity is so varied then don’t have problems with it as a whole, point out those groups within it you do have issues with but in specific. Some of the comments I’ve seen here try to darken a very very broad and varied group of people with specific actions done by a minority. The focus should be on the minority but the implication isn’t always.

    I have a problem with just about all religion, so yes, all of Christianity falls under that umbrella. I believe I’ve already said that. Belief without evidence is not something that should be encouraged, and religion does that.

    Alright, if you don’t want to talk about it I’ll try not push the issue or bring it up again beyond asking you to let me have my thoughts go uncriticized about this matter when I cannot criticize in return.

    I didn’t take it to personal insults. You did. And I believe I already stated my general feelings toward missionaries. I don’t want to go nitpicky over every single thing one specific missionary did.

    Possible, not sure it is likely.

    Well I’ve run into identical arguments over and over again as if they’re straight out of the apologist’s playbook, so I suspect it’s extremely likely that Bobby has, too. I’ve had many of these same discussions on other threads this very week.

    But if it actually is true and he isn’t going to do the one he really shouldn’t even get close to doing the other. If I talk to someone about something one day and run into someone else the next I don’t expect the second person to know what I told the first.

    Again, You Came Here. He didn’t go to a Christian site to bother you. Were I to go to a Christian site and start bothering them, I would fully expect them to be annoyed.

    You missed this (which was the very next sentence):

    I did not. See above.

    I didn’t express any doubts about other people’s ability to speak English.

    Not what I said. Again. I said that I do happen to run into people from around the world on other sites (not just blogs). They speak varying degrees of English. They have different religions. I have quite a few friends right here in America who are Wiccans. No one who isn’t Christian seems to feel the need to proselytize.

    I guess we are different then. Though one of the things about being online is being open to others reading about and responding to what is said.

    I notice you still haven’t answered the question about what you hope to accomplish here.

    @blufindrHaha, yeah, I first learnt English like a decade ago, (I’m 17) so it’s not like it’s a recent transition.

    What a great age to learn a new language! Little kids internalize it better, I think.

    Heidi | Jul 23, 2009 | Reply

  318. Actually, you know what? I think I’ll let Christopher Hitchens speak for me re: Mother Teresa.

    http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/

    http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/hitchens_16_4.html

    Heidi | Jul 23, 2009 | Reply

  319. Apologies if this posts twice. I tried to post it, but it seems to have disappeared, so I’m trying again.

    I’m going to let Christopher Hitchens speak for me regarding Mother Teresa. Read This article he wrote, and this interview he gave.

    Heidi | Jul 23, 2009 | Reply

  320. As a spam reduction measure anything with more than one URL in it goes into moderation.

    This is a fun conversation folks, but please remember that comments are not books, and brevity is the soul of wit.

    Dave Hitt | Jul 23, 2009 | Reply

  321. Oh, ok. It’s fine with me if you want to delete the double post.

    Sorry about the length of many of my responses. That’s part of why I didn’t really want to get into the abortion thing or the Mother Teresa issue.

    Heidi | Jul 23, 2009 | Reply

  322. Just lifted this from a Christian site on Condron:

    Think!

    If you are doing the work of God, that’s good. If you are doing the work of His enemy, that’s not good. If you don’t care, you are still doing the work of His enemy, and that’s still not good.

    For the life of me, I just can’t understand how someone’s brain could atrophy to the point where they would spout such inane crap. One really doesn’t have to open one’s eyes very wide to see that world really isn’t black and white, and that fairy tales are just that and not reality.

    bobby | Jul 23, 2009 | Reply

  323. Don’t know if you guys are familiar with Pat Condell, he has lots of videos on YouTube in which he takes religious beliefs and dismantles them calmly with much wit and common sense. If you haven’t seen him in action you really should Google him and check out some of this stuff. He just loves to poke fun at stupid christian tricks, and I honestly don’t know how anyone could believe in any god after listening to this guy. You’d have to have your head buried up your ass. Oh wait, they do, actually…

    bobby | Jul 23, 2009 | Reply

  324. Pat is great! I’m subscribed to him on YouTube.

    Heidi | Jul 23, 2009 | Reply

  325. Yeah, I figured you would be. Have you seen the Apologists for Evil video? He goes on a rant about the left wing being duped by Islam because it would be politically incorrect to be critical of them. Personally, I haven’t noticed that that’s the case. It doesn’t seem to be here in Kiwiland, but maybe it is in the States? I haven’t been back in several years now. He says he can’t consider himself a left-winger any more because they’ve given it a bad name. Funny stuff.

    bobby | Jul 23, 2009 | Reply

  326. @Heidi: When I was 12, I had a friend (ex-girlfriend of an older brother) who had an unwanted pregnancy. To avoid the wrath of her parents, and some other circumstances I’m not particularly knowledgeable of, she opted for a backyard abortion. She survived, but the resulting damage made it dangerous for her to have a child.

    Earlier this year, she and her now-husband conceived a child. A few months ago, she miscarried, and suffered some rather horrible complications, only one of which was haemorrhage. After a brief and tumultuous stay in hospital, she passed away. She was 21 at the time.

    That story, alone, makes me absolutely adamant that abortions be no longer stigmatized, completely legal, and if possible, free.

    Also, children tend to pick up languages easier because they aren’t set in their ways. The older you get, the more you try to relate everything to the things you already know. Given that a great many languages have set rules that differ (sometimes wildly) from those in English, this can make it difficult for older people to learn a new language.

    @bobby:

    “For the life of me, I just can’t understand how someone’s brain could atrophy to the point where they would spout such inane crap. One really doesn’t have to open one’s eyes very wide to see that world really isn’t black and white, and that fairy tales are just that and not reality.”

    This, to me, sounds more like an argument for atheism. :P

    blufindr | Jul 24, 2009 | Reply

  327. Me argue for atheism? Now where would you get an idea like that?

    bobby | Jul 24, 2009 | Reply

  328. @bobby: No, I haven’t seen that. Interesting. I would guess that you get more backlash for criticizing Christianity here than you do for criticizing Islam. There are more Christians here, and fundies are always looking for a reason to complain.

    OTOH, my kids have been taught at school that Islam is a religion of peace, even though there are more things in the Koran that warrant death than in the bible, even. I think religion of peace is an oxymoron.

    @blufindr: That’s awful! I’m so sorry for your loss.

    And you do bring up a good point. It will still happen, it just won’t be safe, and women will die. But I guess that’s ok with the pro-lifers. They generally only care about unborn life. Thus they are usually the same people who favor war and the death penalty. And of course their god is ok with killing all those Egyptian firstborns. And those 42 “little children” who were shredded by bears for teasing Elisha about his bald head. Because that’s death worthy, right?

    Heidi | Jul 24, 2009 | Reply

  329. Has my last comment cleared the moderator yet? It included a link to atheists for life.

    blufindr

    My sympathies for your friend-how old was she at the time?

    ‘“For the life of me, I just can’t understand how someone’s brain could atrophy to the point where they would spout such inane crap. One really doesn’t have to open one’s eyes very wide to see that world really isn’t black and white, and that fairy tales are just that and not reality.”

    This, to me, sounds more like an argument for atheism. :P”

    Actually it isn’t. It isn’t because many atheists view the world in black and white themselves. Just instead of my religions/moral beliefs vs their religion/not a follower of my moral beliefs it is a situation of my atheism vs anyone’s religion. Still a black and white worldview.

    Heidi

    “And you do bring up a good point. It will still happen, it just won’t be safe, and women will die. But I guess that’s ok with the pro-lifers. They generally only care about unborn life.”

    Actually that isn’t true, many pro-lifers (including me) don’t ask for a woman to die for the sake of an unborn baby. What we are against is the very large imbalance in rights that allows for what we see as one person killing another when in most other situations society wouldn’t approve.

    Alot of things I don’t think are “death-worthy” appear to be in the Old Testament. I’m guessing you already know that.

    pplr | Jul 24, 2009 | Reply

  330. I guess you missed that I said “generally.”

    Heidi | Jul 24, 2009 | Reply

  331. “Actually it isn’t. It isn’t because many atheists view the world in black and white themselves. Just instead of my religions/moral beliefs vs their religion/not a follower of my moral beliefs it is a situation of my atheism vs anyone’s religion. Still a black and white worldview.”

    This actually made me laugh…

    Atheists tend to see more in shades of gray, rather then black and white. I can only think of a few things that actually fall into the “black” category… cold blooded murder, rape, petaphilia (sp), and organized religion. I can’t think of anything truly in the “white” category off the top of my head. Everything else (for the most part) is shades of gray. There are pros and cons to just about everything.

    WWM | Jul 24, 2009 | Reply

  332. Putting religion in a “black” category is seeing things in black and white.

    Labeling it simply as “bad”, “irrational”, and so on invites bias/bigotry like judging people by ethnic group of skin color.

    I’ve met someone who viewed having a black skin color in the same category as thief. That person was a racist IMO and likely the opinion of most other people.

    pplr | Jul 24, 2009 | Reply

  333. typo: ethnic group “or” skin color.

    pplr | Jul 24, 2009 | Reply

  334. You’re comparing skin pigmentation with institutions of oppression and division that exist to glorify obedience and blind belief in the absence of fact? That seems kind of messed up to me.

    Heidi | Jul 24, 2009 | Reply

  335. I must agree with heidi.

    Also, I must say, I see anything that orders belief and worship without anything remotely resembling evidence as bad. So yes, organized religion is bad, and in the “black” category

    also, here’s a nice contradiction for you :)

    Luke has Joseph and Mary living in Nazareth from where they traveled to Bethlehem for the Roman census (Luke 1:26; 2:4). After Jesus was born, Joseph took his family from Bethlehem to Jerusalem for up to 40 days (Luke 2:22), and from there straight back to Nazareth (Luke 2:39). But Matthew says Jesus was born in a “house” where Joseph’s family lived in Bethlehem. And after the birth of Jesus they lived there for up to two years (Matt 2:16)! After the Magi leave them, Joseph is warned in a dream to flee to Egypt and stay there until Herod died (Matt. 2:15). After Herod died, Joseph was told in a dream to return to the land of Israel, and he headed for his home in Bethlehem of Judea. But since he was afraid to go there, he settled in Nazareth (Matt. 2:21-23), for the first time!

    Also, as for the roman census, the census workers visited your home in those days to assess how much tax you should be paying. Thus, there was no reason to travel to Bethlehem for the census.

    WWM | Jul 24, 2009 | Reply

  336. Add to that the fact that carbon dating of materials at the deepest level of Bethlehem prove it didn’t exist until well after the imaginary Jesus was supposed to have been born there and you have – a fairy tale!

    Your comments about the issue of black and white are spot on. Christians will always try hard to drag others down into the hole they’re in.

    bobby | Jul 24, 2009 | Reply

  337. Just read an article that says Obama has gone from praying every night before he goes to bed to praying throughout the day. That will send a chill down the spines of thinking people everywhere. I just lost a big chunk of respect for him. Surely he’s observed that prayer has never gotten him one damn thing except to look like an idiot while he’s doing it.

    bobby | Jul 24, 2009 | Reply

  338. It got him to be president. If people thought he was an atheist, McCain would be in the White House right now. *shudder*

    Heidi | Jul 24, 2009 | Reply

  339. Oh, I agree, he’s probably the best thing that’s happened to America in a long time, but is he just posing with this whole i’m religious just like you thing, or is he really praying for guidance? he seems to with it to be a dimwit christian. Or is that redundant?

    bobby | Jul 24, 2009 | Reply

  340. My best guess would be that he’s putting on a show because righties have been criticizing him for not picking a church to attend. Not saying he doesn’t believe at all, but he doesn’t seem big on religion to me.

    Heidi | Jul 24, 2009 | Reply

  341. You’re probably right. I mean left. I mean…oh hell, you know what I mean. Anyway, I hope so. He does seem too intelligent to believe in fairy tales, but it’s true that you won’t get into any significant office in America without at least paying lip service to the big lie. When will America grow up? That’s one of the things I like about my adopted country, the religious are in the minority here, and the only crap they’be been able to foist on the rest of us is that only small corner stores and petrol stations can open on Easter Sunday. Other than that the fruitcakes can bitch and moan all they want about not getting respect for their stupidity, but nobody pays it any mind.

    bobby | Jul 24, 2009 | Reply

  342. The funny thing here (to me, at least) is when all the fundies in the middle of the country start talking about how they’re the “real” Americans, and the people on the coasts aren’t. I got that from a guy in Wisconsin on Newsvine a few weeks ago.

    My answer was, “Oh, really? How many Revolutionary War battles were fought in your state? I’m in Massachusetts. We invented America here on the east coast, thanks.” Real Americans, indeed. Are we having a pissing contest or something? If we are, my state has a star AND a stripe. :-P

    I bet those people have a really low opinion of Puerto Ricans.

    Heidi | Jul 24, 2009 | Reply

  343. @pplr:STFU!

    proud kuffar | Jul 24, 2009 | Reply

  344. proud kuffar, I’ve been trying to be as diplomatic towards pplr, but you have put it perfectly.

    WWM | Jul 24, 2009 | Reply

  345. LOL @proud kuffar! That’s telling him. :-)

    Heidi | Jul 24, 2009 | Reply

  346. I think proud kuffar just stole my rudeness crown. I’m impressed!

    bobby | Jul 24, 2009 | Reply

  347. I apologise in advance for the discordance in my posts. I’m attempting to address each post as I read it, in order to really make it simple for myself, so if you’ve replied multiple times since I last did, I may address you multiple times now.

    @bobby: Pardon, I was unaware that was something you wrote. My mind connected it with the previous inane author.

    @Heidi: Apparently. Anyone who goes against their creed deserves to suffer horribly. Else, why have the concept of Hell?

    @pplr: That happened when I was 12, and she 16. Her age, though, is irrelevant.

    You still miss the point. Women in desperation will not, will not concede to your point and deny themselves abortion. Up until she had need, my friend (let’s call her Sarah, because I don’t believe in using fake names) was a pro-lifer. And then she found herself with a very much unwanted pregnancy. She ended up in a horrible, horrible situation — emotionally, mentally and physically — and ultimately, gave her life, because abortions were difficult to legally obtain cheaply, and illegal ones made it all but impossible for her to have children when the time came that she actually wanted kids. What Sarah did, is not unique. Millions of women make the same choice she did, millions of women die for it. In your logic, is the unborn foetus not now also guilty of killing its mother?

    @WWM: Do you mean paedophilia? I am in a relationship at the moment that could mean my partner is legally branded as a paedophile, when in reality, I’m just a teleiophile.

    @pplr: I put religion firmly in the dark grey category. I don’t consider religion all bad, since I know some (albeit, not very devout) Christians who are quite good people. But there are simply too many examples of badassery for me to consider religion good overall.

    @proud kuffar: ::cheers and bows:: You, good sir, win an internets.

    blufindr | Jul 24, 2009 | Reply

  348. Heidi

    Actually I would be surprised if Puerto Ricans didn’t live in the midwest. There are a fair number of Mexican immigrants. Though you would actually have to travel around the midwest or research it to know that rather than just make assumptions about other geographic regions as Bobby does with a religious membership.

    I’m not sure how educated he is but I suspect I’ve met people with at last as a high level of education as he has who are practicing members of a religious organizations. Of course, if you want to let bigotry flow then why let reality stop you.

    About what you said:

    “institutions of oppression and division that exist to glorify obedience and blind belief in the absence of fact”

    First part-institutions of oppression. I don’t know of many nations that carry out “oppression” where you can choose to become a citizen of one day and not the next without punishment. Yet you can with most moderns religions-especially when you are talking about practicing in a nation that embraces freedom of religion to a great degree (such as much of the “western” world).

    “division”-I would worry about people who tried to impose a united vision on the world. I suspect they would end up killing or getting people killed. I’ll take many divisions within humanity as a good thing. You want to experience something close to unity of thoughts, join a mind control organization (I’m sure there is a secular one or two out there that are looking for new members).

    “glorify obedience”-yes they do in many cases. Yet some of the major figures who don’t obey are also religious. You’ve already mentioned one-Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    “blind belief in the absence of fact”-actually I already mentioned there was evidence and this last part of what you said seems remarkably similar to when you tried to say there was “no evidence” for religion. The fact is that there is evidence. If you want to say it isn’t good enough for you then you can do so but that would be your opinion and/or decision-an issue different from if it exists.

    Mentioning Wisconsin…. I can check but I’m pretty sure some Revolutionary War veterans eventually settled and, with more time, died in Wisconsin.

    Also George Washington fought over the Ohio River Valley in the French and Indian War. The Ohio river eventually reaches the Mississippi in the Midwest. There are historically connections between the Midwest and the US as a whole that go very far back. Since you mentioned Wisconsin, a Great Lakes state, it is fair to point out there were naval battles on the Great Lakes in the War of 1812. Not sure about you but considering how old the US was 1812 is a pretty long time ago and and if that isn’t good enough for you then perhaps the time period a leading up to and including the Civil War will be enough. As the USA was less than 100 years old at the time and it is over 200 years old now that marks a connection through the majority of the years the USA has existed.

    WMM-the details may not always match. The Gospels were not even written during the time Jesus was alive/said to walk this Earth.

    I take it you’ve never heard of witnesses telling stories that don’t match or details of a story getting mixed up after it is first told (ever play the game “telephone” as a child?)

    I’ve done a few internet searches on what you said about Bethlehem and haven’t come across anything-I’d like to see the arguments for and against what you claim.

    pplr | Jul 24, 2009 | Reply

  349. “pplr:STFU!”

    Wow, the icon of rational debate.

    blufindr-you get some credit for actually trying to weigh religion and give a reason for your answer. Some (including me) may disagree with you but at least you tried. I know a churchgoing elderly woman who brought my sister home when she walked away as a child and adopts abused animals. If you want to judge people do so by their actions, I’m sure you’ll find some very unhelpful and very helpful people among those who are “devout”.

    Bobby-you have a chief bigot here crown to replace rudeness.

    pplr | Jul 25, 2009 | Reply

  350. pplr you have said exactly what I knew you would :) or close enough although I didn’t have the exact words down I knew your response would be along these lines.

    “WMM-the details may not always match. The Gospels were not even written during the time Jesus was alive/said to walk this Earth.

    I take it you’ve never heard of witnesses telling stories that don’t match or details of a story getting mixed up after it is first told.”

    And therein lies the problem. people who lived 100 years later didn’t know shit about what they were writing about. Nobody knew what happened so they made up stories about it. Now if following that as the “word of god” makes sense to you, I won’t stop you, but I do pity you.

    As for religion being bad, you seem to be seeing religious people and religion as a whole as the same thing. there are good people who are religious, but any system of control, deception, and blind faith, is bad. That is what religion is, a system of control, and blind faith at the utmost best. Yes there need to be laws to protect people, but saying some imagined being commands these laws be upheld and saying you will be punished forever, not only if you break any of these laws, but also if you do not believe in the imagined being, and worship him. so someone who lives to provide help and support to everyone around him, but has never heard the name jesus will go to hell.

    WWM | Jul 25, 2009 | Reply

  351. Sure I’m a bigot, but I’m a thinking bigot. I know when I make generalizations I’m just doing it to be annoying, which is what you do, but being a Christian, you’re not honest about it. Yes, I’m also educated, but that has nothing to do with whether one falls for superstition. You’re confusing intelligence with sense. A common mistake in the young. With age comes wisdom, unless you’re an imbecile, and an understanding of what things are worth. Your horse shit, for instance, isn’t worth anything at all. Neither is my “bigotry”, as you’ve chosen to label it. (Is that something your imaginary buddy Jesus would do? I thought he was a turn the other cheek kinda guy. Guess you’re another one of those hypocrites. Imagine that.)

    I don’t have a high horse to get up on to defend the indefensible and the imaginary. I can rattle off whatever words I want to knowing a week from now it won’t matter at all. That’s the biggest difference between you and me. I know what it’s all worth. You, on the other hand, have your head buried up your ass and think all of this matters.

    Proud kaffar got it right, shit-for-brains, that’s why everyone is cheering him.

    bobby | Jul 25, 2009 | Reply

  352. Yet another reason to legalise abortion.

    blufindr | Jul 25, 2009 | Reply

  353. Rather, legalise it and help reduce the blatant stigma about it.

    Sorry. Thought of that postscript only after I clicked “Submit Comment”.

    blufindr | Jul 25, 2009 | Reply

  354. One more thing I feel I should point out. With the massive number of different versions of the bible that have been in use since it’s inception, starting with the Alexandrine (in hebrew)written in the 3rd and 2nd century BCE, Aquila (in greek) written about 130 CE, The Vetus Italia (in latin) towards the end of the 2nd century CE, and so on and so forth… not including several short lived versions, and this trend continued for many years leading up to the king james, and finally the most commonly used today “new king james” version.

    with so many translations and rewrites through history, how much has been changed, omited, or added? One sample I can think of is “timshel” a hebrew word that translates to “thou mayest” or “you may” but in the new king james version it says in the passage in question “thou shalt” or “you will” it changes from a choice, to a command. Also, the latin version is the first version to discribe hell in the terms it is known today, previous to that the word used would be translated to “non-existance” but pits of fire and eternal suffering a much greater reason to follow something then non-existance.

    BTW sorry for any misspelling above, it’s 1AM and I’m a bit tired.

    WWM | Jul 25, 2009 | Reply

  355. blufindr

    I forgot to respond earlier to your question about pedophilia. just remembered you asking. I should have been more specific. when I talk about pedophiles, I am thinking about the pamper packers going after children. I don’t know how old you are, but I get the impression you’re old enough to be making your own decisions. unlike a 5 y/o girl in my hometown who was taken advantage of by a 27 y/o friend of her family. he didn’t make it jail. and the father ended up being found not guilty :) though I would rather see someone like that suffer for a long time, premature death is a better punishment then putting them in a jail where they can watch barney and all the other kids shows every morning. Yes that does happen…

    WWM | Jul 25, 2009 | Reply

  356. Bobby,

    Simple idea: bigotry isn’t reason

    Another simple idea: wisdom is not generally shown by insults

    Last simple idea: wisdom make use of explanations (something I’ve noted many of your comments to me lack)

    WMM

    About a “system of control, deception, and blind faith”, few things to point out.

    Judging a “system of control” bad just because it exists doesn’t ask how much freedom it allows for or what the results are for its controls. If there is a balance between individual and society I think there is a positive argument for it.

    There is only “deception” if the leadership doesn’t believe what it tells the followers. Generally I agree with you that deception is a bad thing. But to say religion is “deception” is huge assumption.

    About the “blind faith”, see above with comments about evidence to Heidi and Blufindr. Faith doesn’t require one to be blind.

    Also each of these things can and already has been present in an atheist system already. Thus if you get rid of religion you are not protected against any of the problems you bring up with that comment.

    Inspired Word of God-Note the human hands and minds that went into editing and translating it. “Inspired” doesn’t mean written directly by. I know a Fundamentalist may have issues with me but I also know you’ve read enough of what I’ve said to see I’m not a Fundamentalist.

    I have typos myself and don’t hold the ones other people make against them.

    pplr | Jul 25, 2009 | Reply

  357. I see you’re embracing being a simpleton. Bravo. This is more your usual gibberish. I never said that bigotry was reason. Nor did I say wisdom was shown by insults, though that statement is not entirely true. Your last statement shows you possess no discernible wisdom. True wisdom does not make use of explanations, where you got that bizarre notion I neither know nor care. My comments to you lack explanations because I couldn’t give a shit less what you think you understand.

    bobby | Jul 25, 2009 | Reply

  358. @WWM: I was just clarifying that was what you meant by “petaphilia”.

    My partner and I have discussed this issue at length. Earlier in our relationship, he worried that he was a paedophile because there is little over a decade between us (as previously stated, I’m 17. He’ll be 29 in November). We decided that there were two forms of paedophilia: that in its original meaning, of physically mature adults being sexually attractive to prepubescent children (biological paedophilia), and that of a physically mature adult being attracted to physically mature (if underage) teenagers (legal paedophilia).

    Technically speaking, the latter isn’t truly paedophilia at all. Going by original meanings, there are few true paedophiles (that I can think of). Rather, the majority of them seems to be hebephiles and ephebophiles.

    I dunno. Chronophilia is an interesting topic.

    Oh, and we decided that he’s not a chronophile. We also decided that I’m a teleiophile. :P

    blufindr | Jul 25, 2009 | Reply

  359. @pplr: I am doing my very best to be patient with you. But you keep purposely missing the point and seizing on irrelevances and distractions. And I must confess that I am at a loss to know what to say to you that you will actually comprehend.

    Dave asked us not to write book-length comments, so I’m going to be as brief as I can.

    1. You know perfectly well I was speaking of Puerto Ricans as in American citizens living in Puerto Rico. If the states on the coasts don’t count as “real” America, then certainly territories wouldn’t.

    2. Your whole Midwest bit had zero to do with the point. My mother went to school in Wisconsin. And I have family and friends in Michigan. My point was that if some guy in Wisconsin wanted to get into a pissing match about where “real” America was, then he ought to consider not chopping out all the states where America was born. If you’d read my post for content rather than for argument fodder, you would already know that. Please stop twisting the subject into things you wish I’d said so that you might have some kind of fact-based argument.

    3. I have to wonder if maybe you should head over to dictionary.com. I do not think a bunch of your words mean what you think they mean.

    Oppression: “We must make this a Christian Nation!” Which implies, “and the hell with everybody else.” I feel ike that’s pretty oppressive.

    Division: Christians, and not-Christians = Us and Them mentality. If you think us vs. them is a good thing, then I feel sorry for you. Division != diversity.

    Obedience: To the religion. Are you trying to tell me that Dr. King disobeyed his religion?

    Fact/evidence: You have not given me any concrete, empirical evidence of anything. Hearsay != evidence. Anecdote != evidence. “You’ll find out when you’re dead” != evidence.

    Keep clinging to your evil sky monster and your unverifiable woo. I’ll keep feeling sorry for you.

    Heidi | Jul 25, 2009 | Reply

  360. Wow, I really tried to make that short. Sorry. :-(

    Heidi | Jul 25, 2009 | Reply

  361. Heidi, you really do know how to word things. point 3 really spells it out in no uncertain terms. Unfortunately people like pplr will always miss the point, either through deliberate twisting of what you said, or total lack of intelligence. I originally thought he was the former, but am beginning to suspect the later more and more. Maybe all that religious crap in his head is causing rot?

    WWM | Jul 25, 2009 | Reply

  362. Thanks. I’m really starting to feel overwhelming pity for this guy either way. Seems like he’s either desperately clutching at straws to justify his belief in superstition, or else he’s been mind-wiped by said superstition.

    Heidi | Jul 25, 2009 | Reply

  363. pplr…

    religion as a system of control is bad. the vast majority of religion either does not allow women to hold positions or limits how far a woman can advance. Gay people are oppressed, they try to control many aspects of people’s lives that are none of their business and does not affect them in any way shape or form.

    I ran an experiment a few years ago. A friend and I went to 15 different churches saying we were a couple. We did not make a big deal about it, just let it be known so if there were any problems we could go somewhere else. out of the 15 churches, ONE had no problem, and we were told there were a few same sex couples who attended the church. (this was the only non-denominational church we found.) In two of the churches we were told it was not a problem, but as soon as it was known we were ignored by everybody and were asked to sit in the back. the rest of these churches asked us to leave.

    Deception, there is a lot of deception in religion. A lot of it is self deception, but the head officials of a church decieve the masses all the time. They hide pedophile priests, I have heard several stories about churches asking for “larger then normal donations” and getting them because of financial problems that simply did not exist. One even went as far as to claim back taxes as the reason… unfortunately this country does not tax the religion industry.

    and as for blind faith. you have not mentioned a single thing that would hold up as evidence. You have claimed that there is evidence, but in all my years I have never seen anything remotely resembling evidence. I have only seen reasons to see “the bible” as nothing more then another book of stories. If you can bring forth any real evidence, I will accept your argument. hearsay and Anecdotes are not evidence. Give me one thing that would hold up in a court of law, and I will follow your imaginary friend with you.

    WWM | Jul 25, 2009 | Reply

  364. Now, now, you know he can’t do that. If there were any concrete evidence it would have surfaced long before now. This guy doesn’t have any ammo, folks. Wheel’s spinning but there’s no hamster in the cage. Truly.

    @Heidi

    Evil sky monster. I love it! and as for your comments about his twisting what we say to challenge us, that’s what I was talking about earlier. I dealt with someone who used the exact same tactics for 10 years, that’s why I say he’s just here to annoy. I’ve seen this before.

    bobby | Jul 25, 2009 | Reply

  365. Heidi,

    Your 1.

    Actually it seemed like you were trying to say people in “middle America” dismiss the rest of the US and are possibly racist (with the point about Puerto Ricans meaning anti-latino.) So know I don’t “know” that you mean as such and with the amount of dismissive, insulting, and outright bigoted comments coming from the people here, including yourself on occasion, there was no reason to assume different.

    Your 2.

    See above as to my viewing you as dismissive.

    Your 3

    I’m trying to point out that when people were actually being oppressed he didn’t go along with it (obey what white people in authority told him to do). Moreover he has done a lot more for advancing diversity than insulting people with other ideas-the latter of which is not a sign that you’re eager to have diversity.

    Imposing a Christian nation is not what I advocate, but I do support a situation where other people are allowed to have their own ideas-a concept that supports diversity but is not supported here via name-calling/bias against religion.

    Fact/evidence: So which US commander won the battle of Midway? If you don’t know what I’m talking about look to my comments about history to Blufindr.

    Tried to keep my comment about as short as your own.

    pplr | Jul 25, 2009 | Reply

  366. WWM

    Evidence: My understanding is that Roman records were researched and thus was found a reference to Pontius Pilate being stationed in the geographic region where accounts from the Bible place him. Granted, this doesn’t prove that Jesus existed but you don’t always get that with history. Much of it is best guess and this particular little bit of info supports the idea that on a basic level at least some of the Bible is correct.

    Women and religion, first when I mentioned the female Anglican bishop to Blufindr because she asked for 1. She is evidence that women can and have reached leadership positions within religious organizations. What I didn’t explicitly state was that her reaching that position officially recognizes that for her sub-branch of Christianity women can be leaders again and again. The door is open somewhere, not everywhere (perhaps yet) but somewhere.

    Your experiment showed something sad. However the 1 church that you and partner were both welcomed at proves that religion isn’t necessarily anti-gay. It may be a far minority at this time (hope this changes in future years) but if religion must be and is automatically anti-gay then you would neither have been nominally welcomed at any nor truly welcomed at the 1.

    I’ve already said I wouldn’t support a someone stealing from the flock/followers. The whole “self deception” bit has already been addressed above.

    pplr | Jul 25, 2009 | Reply

  367. Actually it seemed like you were trying to say people in “middle America” dismiss the rest of the US

    The guy in Wisconsin to whom I was referring (and Sarah Palin, IIRC) did exactly that. His precise words were that the coasts should “drop off into the ocean.” You keep assuming generalizations when there are none, and yet when I do generalize on occasion, you take it personally.

    I’m trying to point out that when people were actually being oppressed he didn’t go along with it (obey what white people in authority told him to do).

    Which is a subject you drummed up so that you could pretend to be arguing with me about it. I said that religion is oppressive. It is. I did not say that Dr. King was in favor of being oppressed by white people. I honestly don’t know how you come to the conclusion that the two statements are remotely the same, or have anything to do with each other.

    You keep arguing with things that haven’t been said. So I’m having a difficult time taking you seriously. If you just want to make things up with which you think you can solidly argue, then why are you bothering with involving me in your conversation in the first place? Seriously? You can play kangaroo court on your own without my help, I’m thinking.

    So which US commander won the battle of Midway?

    Um, who cares? Again, this has nothing to do with anything. You’re grasping at straws. I’ll tell you what, though. As soon as some group starts trying to assert their right to legislate my body, my bedroom activities, and my civil rights and bases it on who won the battle of the Midway, I’ll look into it.

    In the realm of logical fallacy, pplr, what you’re doing is repeatedly coming up with red herrings to distract from the fact that your argument is totally unfounded. If you did have a leg to stand on, you wouldn’t keep doing this. I feel like we’ve got enough red herrings now that we could start a fish market.

    Heidi | Jul 25, 2009 | Reply

  368. I think the question needs to asked here: why would someone who does so much whining about how they’re treated keep coming back and doing the very things that generate the treatment they’re whining about?

    You think maybe it’s all a big wind-up? Maybe? Notice that not once has he ever denied that’s what he’s here for. No denial whatsoever.

    @pplr

    WWJD?

    bobby | Jul 25, 2009 | Reply

  369. Maybe Jesus would turn all those fish back into loaves?

    Probably not, though. That would be like telling people he was there, rather than making them imagine him.

    Note: God doesn’t stack up to the biblical requirements of proving divine existence/. I get just as much response from Baal as I do from Yahweh.

    Heidi | Jul 25, 2009 | Reply

  370. Oh, that Baal. He’s such a dick. Not as bad as some Christians though…;-)

    bobby | Jul 25, 2009 | Reply

  371. Heidi

    You seemed to generalize when you used the words “those people”.

    About “You keep assuming generalizations when there are none, and yet when I do generalize on occasion, you take it personally.”

    1. I have been insulted here personally, not just as a member of a group or as a misunderstood reference to someone else but comments pretty clearly aimed at me.

    2. I am broadly a member of a group that plenty of insults have been made about.

    3. There is an actual bigot here and you’ve made no attempt to distance yourself from him-even when he says “wisdom does not make use of explanations” and pretty much throws everything anyone has said about evidence out the window.

    Any one of those is arguably enough to make me at least consider if, when you say something, I should take it personally and/or in the worst possible way. And all three are going at the same time, just think about that a little.

    When I first commented it was in response to something that I saw as a mischaracterization. As a broadly implied member of the group at issue I have every right to speak up.

    About the Battle of Midway. I’m not grasping for straws. I laid out a real life example for Blufindr to better explain how hard it is to prove a huge number of things that have taken place throughout history.

    The example is still there, you can still see above.

    pplr | Jul 25, 2009 | Reply

  372. Are you still here?! I’ve seen cognitive dissonance before, but you take it to new heights.

    Yes, I said wisdom does not make use of explanations. That’s simply a fact. That you don’t get it doesn’t surprise me in the least, you aren’t the sharpest knife in the drawer. And btw, my name isn’t “he”, asshole. You can throw the word bigot around all you like, nobody cares, but apparently you can’t see that. Again, you’re stupid.

    Why don’t you try asking yourself why you keep coming here when it clearly makes you miserable. Of course, you’d have to pull your head out of your ass first, and I guess that’s not something you’ve ever considered, so it won’t happen.

    bobby | Jul 25, 2009 | Reply

  373. One more thing. I have never thrown anything anyone has said about evidence out the window. That’s an outright lie. Not surprising coming from a Christian, but still, I won’t let that stand. It’s been pointed out to you that there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of any god or Jesus. If you don’t like it that’s too bad.

    bobby | Jul 25, 2009 | Reply

  374. @pplr: I am not responsible for Bobby’s statements. However, if he had actually said anything that I found truly hateful, I would have spoken up. If he has said any such thing, I have completely missed it.

    Your battle analogy is without merit. Presumably there is enough evidence to prove that the battle actually happened, correct? It’s not a manufactured event? The rest is just details lost in the chaos of the moment. Information that they didn’t claim to know at the time, either, if I understand you correctly.

    We have evidence of Plato. Evidence of Caesar. Khufu predated your religion by thousands of years. He’s got a great big pyramid. You have no evidence. None. Not a speck. There is no more evidence of the “truth” of your religion than there is of the existence of Hercules (also half a god, and he has better stories).

    Heidi | Jul 25, 2009 | Reply

  375. @Heidi: Indeed. Cleaning out a giant stables filled with horse poop by diverting the power of nature >>>> walking on water, IMO.

    blufindr | Jul 25, 2009 | Reply

  376. Yep. Strangling snakes in his crib was pretty cool, too.

    Heidi | Jul 25, 2009 | Reply

  377. @Heidi: Indeed.

    You know, vintage is back. Maybe I’ll just follow Grecian mythology instead. ::shrugs:: Makes about as much sense as many mainstream religions.

    blufindr | Jul 25, 2009 | Reply

  378. pplr

    although I don’t really care what is believed, I figured I would point something out… “A friend and I went to 15 different churches saying we were a couple.” you seem to have missed that, even though it was very clear that he and I were not a couple. Not surprising that a christian missed the obvious.

    I’ve been trying to ignore your red herrings, though I have bitten into a few of them simply because they were fun to pick apart.

    Now I’m done with them, at least for now. I just want to say I’m still waiting for any evidence of your lord god almighty existing. And until you bring forth some evidence, I will continue to see religion as a corrupt business with interests only in oppressing the people, and selling fairy tales. The sad thing is that the “customers” of this business willing buy the oppression that is laid upon them.

    WWM | Jul 25, 2009 | Reply

  379. Much less restrictive, too. And more interesting. Plus you get your choice of gods, since there’s a whole pantheon. I kind of like Apollo. He brings the sun every morning, and at least I know the sun is real.

    Heidi | Jul 25, 2009 | Reply

  380. Well of course it’s real, God made it! :-p

    bobby | Jul 25, 2009 | Reply

  381. I quite like the story of Demeter and her daughter.

    Hell, even the parables are more fun.

    blufindr | Jul 26, 2009 | Reply

  382. WWM

    Did I miss the detail that you and your partner were only pretending to be gay? Yes. I could say that I meant partner in terms of doing a test, but I’m trying to be honest. However….

    “Not surprising that a christian missed the obvious.”

    Are you trying to take a step in Bobby’s place? Insert the world “black guy” in your comment and it would be evidence of racism.

    Did I miss the goal of your test or its results (your point). No.

    Both I and Heidi mentioned we may miss something in a comment. I got most of your story correct except for one detail. When Heidi didn’t see why I brought up the Battle of Midway I repeated what I said and explained it a bit more. She would have understood what I was trying to explain had she followed the reference I made to the example I gave Blufindr.

    I didn’t jump on her for missing it and neither did you. Moreover I didn’t jump on you when you brought up an idea that was historically inaccurate after I had already explained why it was wrong to other people. I figured you missed what I said before and explained again.

    Two theories that present themselves as to why you only remarked about when I missed something. One is at you are biased enough in your thoughts you only notice evidence when it justifies an idea you already may have (bias that Christians must be stupid). And the other is that you were looking for a cheap shot to get in.

    Neither indicates you were looking for all the evidence.

    pplr | Jul 26, 2009 | Reply

  383. Um, whoa? I didn’t miss what you said the first time about the battle. In fact, I read it at the time you posted it during your conversation with blufindr. I just don’t agree with you that it is even remotely relevant. And I stand by my statement that you are grasping for straws. Red herring shaped straws.

    Heidi | Jul 26, 2009 | Reply

  384. Heidi

    The Battle of Midway analogy is actually a good one because we are talking about proving the existence of 1 person. Part of my point with that analogy was how hard it can be to prove something about 1 person, but evidence about the presence or absence (and perhaps existence) of 1 person can be lost in the chaos of a battle.

    You mentioned Plato. An interesting thought that many people in the modern day attach to Plato is that if it wasn’t for him we wouldn’t know many of the things we do about Socrates and his thoughts. But for 1 person Socrates may not have had the renown he does in the world today.

    To compare evidence for Caesar and Jesus. One was the ruler of massive physical and geographical empire in his own time (making it so evidence of him would be widespread and can survive a problem event that occurs in one area), and the Roman rulers weren’t opposed to (could even go overboard with) making stone statues of themselves or for their accomplishments. Jesus, if the stories are correct, preached in a small region that has seen, at times, plenty of turmoil and wasn’t known for commissioning stone statues or markers. Apples and Oranges in terms of the type and amount of historical evidence they leave behind.

    After putting forward the case about how hard it could be prove Jesus existed back then if he did I was going to mention a few points that provide evidence for his existence. One of them was going to involve his followers-if it is believed a person functioned as a preacher in some manner it is reasonable to expect to find followers of such a person.

    While I was looking for places to reference I came across this site. It includes a few things I wouldn’t have and I disagree with the man in that I think some people would die to protect a lie if it serves a cause. However, he does bring up some reasons as to why a person can rationally support the idea Jesus existed.

    http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html

    He may be a fundamentalist and I could thus end up disagreeing with him on some theological understandings. But he did look for sources of information that were not part of the Bible-a credit to rather than a problem with his work.

    pplr | Jul 26, 2009 | Reply

  385. You can take the word of a dim-witted fundy spouting lies, or you can read what a biblical scholar has to say on the matter:

    http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html

    bobby | Jul 26, 2009 | Reply

  386. @Heidi, blufindr, WWM

    I hope you’ll get a chance to read the article I posted, I’ve been meaning to post it for a while now. It’s the definitive text on the refutation of the Jesus myth. I’ve looked this guy up elsewhere, he’s been abused, he’s had death threats against him and his work has been censored many times, all by Christians who can’t stand the truth.

    It’s dense reading, but he tears down every single one of pinhead’s references for the existence of Jesus, they’ve all been used before and they’re all false.

    We need to keep railing against the forces of fear, ignorance and superstition that that the scumbags keep vomiting at us.

    bobby | Jul 26, 2009 | Reply

  387. Here is an easier to follow site on why there is not one shred of evidence to support the Jesus myth.

    http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

    bobby | Jul 26, 2009 | Reply

  388. The Battle of Midway analogy is actually a good one

    You can keep repeating that all day. It doesn’t make it true. Is there any question with your battle about who was *there* during it? No. the question is about specifics relating to the outcome that were lost in the chaos AT THE TIME.

    But for 1 person Socrates may not have had the renown he does in the world today.

    There is no corroborating evidence that Socrates even existed in the first place as anything other than a story device for Plato. Scholars are torn on whether or not he was real. Analogy fail.

    To compare evidence for Caesar and Jesus. One was the ruler of massive physical and geographical empire in his own time

    And one was supposedly wandering around performing honest-to-goodness miracles all over the place. Strangely there is no record of a wandering miracle-making guy.

    Jesus, if the stories are correct, preached in a small region that has seen, at times, plenty of turmoil and wasn’t known for commissioning stone statues or markers.

    Or handwritten notes, because they couldn’t afford paper and/or parchment, even though he was a god, right? (This is the way someone on another blog explained it to me a few weeks ago.)

    However, he does bring up some reasons as to why a person can rationally support the idea Jesus existed.

    I exist. That doesn’t make me a god. Then again, nobody would confuse me with Mithras or Horus. Maybe that’s the essential god ingredient.

    We need to keep railing against the forces of fear, ignorance and superstition that that the scumbags keep vomiting at us.

    Yeah, I try, but I grow weary of shouting into the wind after a while and have to recharge.

    Going to go read now.

    Heidi | Jul 26, 2009 | Reply

  389. If you read what I sent you’ll see that pinhead is lying when he says that a person can rationally support the idea that Jesus existed. It can’t be done. All they have is hearsay evidence collected long after he supposedly existed. Hearsay is not evidence, it has no validity.

    bobby | Jul 26, 2009 | Reply

  390. The irony of Bobby’s first comment after mine is that the man he brought up wouldn’t say there is no God. He would likely say God is best understood, at least partly, by his experience/knowledge.

    I started to read through what the man wrote.

    To summarize here it is (at least as far as I went up to now).

    Who we understand as Jesus is actually this other guy who died at this other time and had this group of followers that started earlier.

    If anyone read further than I did (and he wrote for a long time) and has a better summary go ahead and post it.

    However what point I brought up with the existence of followers still indicates/implies something rather than nothing happened.

    We can argue about what that thing was but since we have gotten to the point of actually debating evidence. An issue gets addressed.

    The issue addressed is are religious people automatically irrational? The implication is for rationality because sane/rational people often look at evidence and use it to influence their decisions/guesses as to what happened.

    Their conclusions may be different but they are actually looking at something in a thoughtful and rational manner.

    As a side note, if I saw this man being chased by a group of people that wanted to harm him (including if they are Christians) I would feel obligated to help him because I support having different ideas out there so that people can decide for themselves what happened.

    I hope, and think that some of you may agree, you can support that as a reasonable concept.

    pplr | Jul 26, 2009 | Reply

  391. Heidi

    Scholars may be torn about Socrates but I have some doubts as to if the bulk of one group would simply run around saying the other is irrational because they disagree.

    pplr | Jul 26, 2009 | Reply

  392. Your capacity for self delusion is phenomenal. There is not one shred of evidence that Jesus existed, and a world of evidence that he didn’t. Bethlehem didn’t exist when he was supposedly born. You can’t get around that. The religion is called CHRISTIANITY! It’s a personality cult surrounded a non-existent person. Get over it.

    And no, you didn’t understand a word he said. Try the other site, it’s geared more to your I.Q.

    Yes, religious people are irrational about they’re belief in a god. There is no evidence to support it, so to continue to believe is irrational by definition. I can’t believe how thick you are!

    bobby | Jul 26, 2009 | Reply

  393. Also, if you’re going to use the word irony, try finding out what it means first. There is no irony in my referencing a Jewish scholar. But then again, you have no idea what wisdom is, so it shouldn’t surprise me that the definition of irony escapes you too.

    bobby | Jul 26, 2009 | Reply

  394. Ok, wow. Reaction to pplr’s link: There is no evidence there. It starts off…

    We do not grant this idea that the Bible cannot be considered a source of evidence for the existence of Jesus.

    And then proceeds to talk about biblical and Talmudic evidence, followed by evidence that there were Christians. There are still Christians. Their existence is not in doubt. All his evidence is anecdotal. A single “I went and saw Jesus performing miracles” would be infinitely better than his whole page.

    reaction to Bobby’s first link: Holy crap that was complicated. My head hurts now. lol. I’ll have to take a brain rest before I read the second link.

    Heidi | Jul 26, 2009 | Reply

  395. Gah. I was reading so long that there are a ton more replies. lol.

    If anyone read further than I did (and he wrote for a long time) and has a better summary go ahead and post it.

    I did read further than you did, apparently. In fact, I read about 80% of it before my brain melted from information overload.

    He did not say what you think he said. He said Jesus is a mythical composite figure based on about 6 or 8 other people, five pagan deities, and multiple misunderstandings and mistranslations. (I’m estimating from memory on the figures. But there were at least three rabbinical figures and three crucified messiahs, plus a handful of pagan gods.)

    However what point I brought up with the existence of followers still indicates/implies something rather than nothing happened.

    Hoo boy. I bet a lot of things happened in the hundred years before and after the birth of your imaginary god. None of it makes your religion true. Very few of the historical people the author mentions even lived at the same time.

    The issue addressed is are religious people automatically irrational?

    Twisting. Religious *belief* is irrational, as it is belief in the absence of evidence. As to whether every single religious person is completely and totally irrational in every single aspect of their life, probably not. But yes, believing in unsupported superstitious woo is indeed irrational.

    As a side note, if I saw this man being chased by a group of people that wanted to harm him (including if they are Christians) I would feel obligated to help him because I support having different ideas out there so that people can decide for themselves what happened.

    Um, what? Where the heck did that come from? Wait, let me guess. The land of red herrings? You’re really not making a great case for the rational faculties of religious people. It’s like your thought processes come from another planet.

    By your logic, my answer should be “If I see a building on fire, I would call the fire department, even if the building turned out to be a church. Dinosaur, watermelon.” WTF are you even talking about?

    Scholars may be torn about Socrates but I have some doubts as to if the bulk of one group would simply run around saying the other is irrational because they disagree.

    Because, as with your battle analogy, it doesn’t matter. There are no al-Socrata people making bombs and flying planes into buildings. There are no Fundamentalist Socratians trying to teach my children fairy tales in lieu of science in their school. And no one lives his or her life on the basis of whether or not Socrates was a real person.

    Heidi | Jul 26, 2009 | Reply

  396. Heidi

    “Twisting. Religious *belief* is irrational, as it is belief in the absence of evidence.”

    Actually I said there was evidence, have said so all along. The question is if the evidence is convincing. The person here said it shouldn’t be and explained why. Fact of the matter, there is a debate over evidence-not no evidence.

    If the man is as well researched as he seems to be do you think he would try to come up with evidence for his religious understanding to be true? The man learned enough to write this didn’t choose to be atheist.

    “There are no al-Socrata people making bombs and flying planes into buildings. There are no Fundamentalist Socratians trying to teach my children fairy tales in lieu of science in their school. And no one lives his or her life on the basis of whether or not Socrates was a real person.”

    You also don’t have people being put in gulags or “reeducation through labor” camps for being Fundamentalist Socratians.

    I’m glad you would call the fire department, but not every atheist would.

    pplr | Jul 26, 2009 | Reply

  397. Heidi, you amaze me. I’ll bet you’re really good with children. You have a calm and grace about you that’s really special. And your summation of what the scholar said is bang on. That’s the difference between an intelligent person reading it and…well, others.

    bobby | Jul 26, 2009 | Reply

  398. What was all that crap about? I’m starting to think you’re not even capable of any rational argument at all. At any rate I’ve seen no evidence to support the idea. Your author cited only hearsay. That’s not the same thing as evidence. Perhaps you’re unaware that hearsay doesn’t constitute evidence in even the most simple debates. Tell me, what color is the sky in your world?

    bobby | Jul 26, 2009 | Reply

  399. Bobby, as long as you live on the Earth I figure it is the same color sky as yours.

    I noticed something you did, and I’ll admit speculation on my part but it fits some of your comments.

    You brought up someone who actually may be a historical expert.

    You let this religious man and historical expert damage a Christian understanding of historical events that I brought up.

    You then put out a comment about how Christians were a danger to this man and his ideas (death threats and censorship).

    You then discarded him after he served his purpose of damaging a Christian understanding of history because you realized he wasn’t an atheist.

    You replaced his commentary with that of an atheist because you would rather have that be the understanding of history used.

    Because at a certain point his understanding of history and yours would differ.

    I would try to help him if I saw him in danger in spite of the fact that he works to counter at least some of the Christian (broadly the same group you said was coming down on him) understandings that I have.

    Heidi would too, in spite of her likelihood to disagree with him on his own religious belief.

    How about you who on the one hand makes him out to be a victim and on the other as part of the “forces of fear, ignorance and superstition that that the scumbags keep vomiting at us”?

    You were more subtle with the 2nd part than the first, but he is a religious person and therefore one of the “scumbags”.

    pplr | Jul 26, 2009 | Reply

  400. Not sure what’s going on here, I have a response in my inbox that hasn’t appeared here, and I don’t know why that is, but I want to respond to it, so i’m going to post it and then respond:

    Author: pplr
    Comment:
    Bobby, as long as you live on the Earth I figure it is the same color sky as yours.

    I noticed something you did, and I’ll admit speculation on my part but it fits some of your comments.

    You brought up someone who actually may be a historical expert.

    You let this religious man and historical expert damage a Christian understanding of historical events that I brought up.

    You then put out a comment about how Christians were a danger to this man and his ideas (death threats and censorship).

    You then discarded him after he served his purpose of damaging a Christian understanding of history because you realized he wasn’t an atheist.

    You replaced his commentary with that of an atheist because you would rather have that be the understanding of history used.

    Because at a certain point his understanding of history and yours would differ.

    I would try to help him if I saw him in danger in spite of the fact that he works to counter at least some of the Christian (broadly the same group you said was coming down on him) understandings that I have.

    Heidi would too, in spite of her likelihood to disagree with him on his own religious belief.

    How about you who on the one hand makes him out to be a victim and on the other as part of the “forces of fear, ignorance and superstition that that the scumbags keep vomiting at us”?

    You were more subtle with the 2nd part than the first, but he is a religious person and therefore one of the “scumbags”.

    My response:

    “Not sure what’s going on here, I have a response in my inbox that hasn’t appeared here, and I don’t know why that is, but I want to respond to it, so i’m going to post it and then respond:

    Author: pplr
    Comment:
    Bobby, as long as you live on the Earth I figure it is the same color sky as yours.

    I noticed something you did, and I’ll admit speculation on my part but it fits some of your comments.

    You brought up someone who actually may be a historical expert.

    “You let this religious man and historical expert damage a Christian understanding of historical events that I brought up.”

    I didn’t let him do anything, he’s a free agent. I fail to see how he’s “damaged” anything, he’s simply dismantled the jesus myth with facts.

    “You then discard him…because he wasn’t an atheist.”

    Where the hell is that coming from? I’ve known about this guy for years, and I stated he was Jewish scholar, where do you get that I suddenly realized he’s not an atheist and that I discarded him? I’ve done no such thing. Again, your grasp of reality is tenuous at best. And what does it matter? All we’re on about here is whether or not Jesus ever existed, doesn’t matter who comes up with the facts.

    “You replaced his commentary with that of an atheist because you would rather have that be the understanding of history used.”

    No, I didn’t. I offered another site that was meant for a wider audience, the Jewish scholar was writing mostly for academics. And you you accused me of ED? Wow.

    As for the rest, I never made him out to be a victim, that’s you, not me. As for him being a religious person, and therefore one of the scumbags, again you’re wrong. The scumbags are the prosthletizers, I’ve made that clear many times. This man is a scholar and a Jew. Jews don’t try to shove their beliefs down the throats of others.

    bobby | Jul 26, 2009 | Reply

  401. Ok, so I post all that and then his post shows up. This is bizarre. Sorry for all that, it simply wasn’t there and I didn’t want to respond without everyone being able to see what I was responding to.

    bobby | Jul 26, 2009 | Reply

  402. pplr

    I admit I did snap a bit with my last post. I tend to do that when I am hitting my head against the brick wall that is religious belief. This doesn’t change the fact that nothing you have said, the entire time you have been posting here, has any merit whatsoever.

    “Their conclusions may be different but they are actually looking at something in a thoughtful and rational manner.”

    so if I take a book written 2,000 years ago that says a man named Hercules was a half god, should I worship him? there is just as much evidence of a man named Hercules having lived as there is of a man named Jesus having lived. And everything aside, if he lived, that does not prove he was a half god. So your “Jesus myth” holds as much merit as Hercules.

    WWM | Jul 26, 2009 | Reply

  403. bobby

    forgot to add my comment to you, I just bookmarked the two links you posted. My g/f is getting home in about 1/2 hour after about a week and a half out of the country so I’m about to go meet her at her place and don’t have the time to read them just yet. However, it sounds like something I would really like to read so I’ll let you know what I think when I’m done. :)

    WWM | Jul 26, 2009 | Reply

  404. Actually I said there was evidence, have said so all along.

    And what you put forth as evidence does not fit the definition of the word.

    If the man is as well researched as he seems to be do you think he would try to come up with evidence for his religious understanding to be true? The man learned enough to write this didn’t choose to be atheist.

    Nor did he choose to be a Christian. Your point?

    Had you bothered to *read* the article, he also mentions that the story of Moses fits many of the pagan myths, as well. And he admits that many Jewish scholars choose not to see that. I don’t get the feeling from him that he’s big on the woo.

    You also don’t have people being put in gulags or “reeducation through labor” camps for being Fundamentalist Socratians.

    *sigh* We went over this about 900 million times. I’m bored of explaining it, as it’s obvious you can’t or won’t comprehend the explanation. But let me remind you that repeating the same invalid analogy doesn’t make it suddenly valid.

    I’m glad you would call the fire department, but not every atheist would.

    Oh really? Name one who wouldn’t.

    Heidi, you amaze me. I’ll bet you’re really good with children. You have a calm and grace about you that’s really special. And your summation of what the scholar said is bang on. That’s the difference between an intelligent person reading it and…well, others.

    Thanks. My kids are still alive, so I guess that’s good. lol.

    Perhaps you’re unaware that hearsay doesn’t constitute evidence in even the most simple debates.

    You know, I don’t think he is aware of that.

    You replaced his commentary with that of an atheist because you would rather have that be the understanding of history used.

    Um, I think he put the second link because it would be easier to understand if the first one had too many big words.

    I would try to help him if I saw him in danger in spite of the fact that he works to counter at least some of the Christian (broadly the same group you said was coming down on him) understandings that I have.

    Why do you keep saying things like that? What relevance does it have to anything? You may have missed the implications of this, but many atheists are also secular humanists, or share their values. I’m generalizing, but bear with me. I really think you should look up secular humanism and read about its tenets. They start with this being the only life we have, and that we have a duty to each other to make sure our lives are happy. (Simplifying for brevity.)

    Of course I would call the fire department if a building was on fire. Fire = bad = get someone to put it out. That has jack to do with my atheism. I think you’re confusing atheists with Heath Ledger’s Joker. “Some men just want to watch the world burn.”

    Heidi | Jul 26, 2009 | Reply

  405. Just saw a George Carlin YouTube video:

    George Carlin: Interview with Jesus

    Great stuff. Look it up if you have time.

    @Heidi

    You’re a saint. Truly.

    bobby | Jul 26, 2009 | Reply

  406. Bobby

    I think this is the first you’ve mentioned to me you don’t have a problem with Jews. Atheism generally means not a believer in any faith.

    And I don’t know why you got the email. I put my reply there for everyone to see. The comment you made seemed to solicit sympathy for the man that I felt was false when coming from you.

    Given the number of insults you’ve felt free to throw around I’ll bet you probably have been willing to push an idea down someone’s throat before. Maybe just not a religious one.

    WWM

    If you don’t view any of the discussion about religious understandings/history as valid I’ll live as I was not intending to convert anyone, my general intent was to ask for a bit more respect for people who are members of religious group as a charge seemed to be made against many people that they were liars-a charge that I have some doubts is backed with proof in every case.

    The points I made-prior to the whole discussion about religious history-about mischaracterizations and, especially, the historical inaccuracy of blaming all the suppression of religion and oppression related to it on Stalin were based on more than hearsay. So they had merit.

    Heidi

    If by “woo” you mean religion. My guess is that he felt he was trying to clarify/purify the presentation of his religious beliefs by his fellow members in it rather than deny the validity of his religion.

    I don’t read as fast as you and haven’t even gotten through half of what he said, I suspect your summary of what he said will likely be true when I get to where you reached.

    My guess is that not all atheists (certainly not throughout history) have taken up the tenets of secular humanism. For those that have if there is a do no harm aspect that works for me.

    pplr | Jul 27, 2009 | Reply

  407. @Heidi
    You’re a saint. Truly.

    Do I have the full miracle count?

    Atheism generally means not a believer in any faith.

    Right, but it doesn’t mean harm the harmless.

    my general intent was to ask for a bit more respect for people who are members of religious group

    Atheists have quietly and politely respected religion for thousands of years now, and what do we get for a thank you? Fundies who say “We must make this a Christian Nation!” Terrorists who blow up buildings. “In God We Trust” carved into the capitol visitors’ center.

    I feel like this Star Trek TNG quote from First Contact pretty much sums it up:

    “We’ve made too many compromises already; too many retreats. They invade our space and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!”

    Picard was angrier than I am (I’m mostly just fed up), but the point stands.

    My guess is that not all atheists (certainly not throughout history) have taken up the tenets of secular humanism.

    So is that what you use as the basis for your statement that not every atheist would call the fire department if a church was on fire? A guess? Because I guess it’s just as likely that a Protestant wouldn’t call the fire department if a cathedral was on fire.

    Heidi | Jul 27, 2009 | Reply

  408. Atheism generally means not a believer in any faith.

    Yeah, so? what does that have to do with anything?

    Given the number of insults you’ve felt free to throw around I’ll bet you probably have been willing to push an idea down someone’s throat before. Maybe just not a religious one.

    For the life of me, I can’t see how one relates to the other. You have some incredibly bizarre notions about things, and you leap to whatever conclusion suits your purposes without any regard for logic whatsoever. You’re a freak.

    bobby | Jul 27, 2009 | Reply

  409. Heidi,

    “Atheism generally means not a believer in any faith.”

    A reason why I would be surprised that Bobby has sympathies for an active member/official of any religious group.

    “Right, but it doesn’t mean harm the harmless.”

    I never said it did, only that some atheists would/already have. If you look at the reference “Ernest McCullough, a Christan, got into an argument about religion with a Muslim, who ended the debate by shooting him in the leg” from the list above all you have to do is make Mr. McCullough an atheist in a different time and/or place and he would have had the Muslin person imprisoned or executed.

    “Atheists have quietly and politely respected religion for thousands of years now, and what do we get for a thank you? Fundies who say “We must make this a Christian Nation!” Terrorists who blow up buildings. “In God We Trust” carved into the capitol visitors’ center.”

    Some have, some haven’t. (quietly respecting for years)

    The same “Fundies” don’t have respect for other versions of/interpretations of Christianity or other religious groups at in general. The problem with people making this a _____ nation is it is a strike against pluralism and freedom of thoughts/beliefs. Claiming what Fundamentalists do should be a rallying cry for atheists ignores the mutuality of a problem.

    The “terrorists” who blow up buildings are also a mutual problem. Again treating mutual problems as rallying cries for a sole group.

    In comparison to capital visitors center. The downtown public library here has a bunch of fertility symbols on its exterior. I can see removing them as a waste of time and money. I also don’t take them as a personal insult or sign my rights are ignored, especially when the library functions as it should for people no matter what their beliefs or lack thereof are.

    pplr | Jul 27, 2009 | Reply

  410. “The points I made-prior to the whole discussion about religious history-about mischaracterizations and, especially, the historical inaccuracy of blaming all the suppression of religion and oppression related to it on Stalin were based on more than hearsay. So they had merit.”

    They had no merit. As we have explained, Stalin did NOTHING “in the name of atheism.” He did things in the name of communism, but communism /= atheism. Mainly Stalin acted in the name of Stalin, and nothing else.

    WWM | Jul 27, 2009 | Reply

  411. you know, WWM, I suspect he’s easily distracted by shiny objects. Just a thought…

    bobby | Jul 28, 2009 | Reply

  412. WWM

    The point I tried to make was that Stalin got blamed for everything yet he didn’t do, nor was responsible for, all of the suppression of religion that went on. Please go back/see above.

    Frankly I’ve already explained why Stalin couldn’t have done everything and you’ve brought him up again, seemingly, as the sole source of problems. I provided a link that broadly discussed the history of atheism in the 20th century+.

    Could you provide a link to whatever source you have that says Stalin did it all/everything? Also, a link to whomever is claiming the atheism related to communism isn’t really atheism would be good.

    I know I’ve missed things, but this time I think you have.

    pplr | Jul 28, 2009 | Reply

  413. I think this argument is a little bit one-sided. Average religious people often get picked on because of their beliefs, sometimes to points that are just as bad as this. Christians, Muslims–they’re doing bad things for what they believe in, but that’s not to say that some Athiests don’t take it too far. This list only shows when religious extremists have gone too far, but what about the other side?

    Izzifer | Jul 29, 2009 | Reply

  414. @pplr: A reason why I would be surprised that Bobby has sympathies for an active member/official of any religious group.

    This statement is a reason why I don’t like, respect, or trust religious people. Keep doing it. Maybe it will help your case. Oh, wait.

    I never said it did, only that some atheists would/already have.

    Yes, you did. And you dance around the question when I ask you to name one. “Oh, communists” you say. Newsflash: Communists would wipe out (and have done) any group that they think people are more loyal to the group than to the party. Wake. Up. That’s how it works.

    Some have, some haven’t. (quietly respecting for years)

    See above.

    In comparison to capital visitors center. The downtown public library here has a bunch of fertility symbols on its exterior. I can see removing them as a waste of time and money. I also don’t take them as a personal insult or sign my rights are ignored, especially when the library functions as it should for people no matter what their beliefs or lack thereof are.

    Wow, it had been seconds since you used a flawed analogy! That must be a record for you. How would you feel if they were going to carve brand spanking new pagan symbols into a government building? Maybe instead of the god bit, they could put “Blessed Be” and carve in the triple moon. I mean that wouldn’t bother you at all, right?s really starting to bore me.

    @Izzifer: I have nothing to say to you that I haven’t already said at least three times above. Talking to pplr is already like screaming into the wind (or playing Monopoly), and I just don’t have the energy to start the game over.

    Heidi | Jul 29, 2009 | Reply

  415. @izzifer

    Oh, please, do tell us which atheists have taken it “too far”, whatever that means. I’m just dying to know. What other side are you referring to? Your post makes no sense whatsoever. I’m guessing you’re a Christian.

    bobby | Jul 29, 2009 | Reply

  416. Heidi

    Are you now coming to agree with me that a cost/benefit analysis should be applied before a court case is made against what is on a public building, marker/sign, or object in general?

    Communists defining other organizations in society as rivals to be destroyed does not exclude them from being atheists.

    Atheism can work as a justification for them to use cynically as an excuse to dominate. But many also promoted the idea that anything that could be defined “supernatural” was not real. This was a step above just ensuring their power over society.

    Instead of abusing people in the name of a religion they do so in the name of ending superstition-essentially hurting people in the “name of atheism” without using that exact phrase.

    pplr | Jul 29, 2009 | Reply

  417. That is utter crap. A complete lie and further proof that you simply define things the way you want to back up your lame point. You are so completely wrong about this it’s laughable. You’re a real jerk. Why don’t you go bother other people for a change?

    bobby | Jul 29, 2009 | Reply

  418. Oh, and about….

    “A reason why I would be surprised that Bobby has sympathies for an active member/official of any religious group.

    This statement is a reason why I don’t like, respect, or trust religious people.”

    Bobby has made a point of showing disrespect toward/for religious people. He has also implied he is an atheist (and that this is part of the reason he acts so). Since he has done this already it can be surprising to a reasonable person that he actually would have sympathies for a religious official. Define how this makes someone who sees it as such untrustworthy.

    I wasn’t using Bobby as an excuse to attack Atheists as a group. There are a few atheists who have already posted that understand that you shouldn’t treat others (individually or as a group) different from how you would want to be treated yourself.

    John, jenn, buzgun, Evergreen, Izzifer (if he/she is athiest) are each examples.

    pplr | Jul 29, 2009 | Reply

  419. If more people were like them (with regard to how they treat others rather than their take on religion) we may have less stories of discrimination, atrocities, or Bobby like (no matter what POV defines their source) comments.

    pplr | Jul 29, 2009 | Reply

  420. I have never implied anything, I state what I want to say clearly and leave no doubt about my intent, unlike you, who have been underhanded and devious from day one, good little Christian that you are.

    I have contempt for those who try to shove their religion down my throat. Simple as that. It has nothing to do with what they believe privately. I’m a firm believer in live and let live, those who aren’t will continue to receive utter contempt .

    Your lies and bullshit about communism being a cover for atheism have been addressed over and over and you continue to make the same lame case. That’s abusive, so you have no claim to accuse others in that vein. You’re a hypocrite.

    bobby | Jul 29, 2009 | Reply

  421. Are you now coming to agree with me that a cost/benefit analysis should be applied before a court case is made against what is on a public building, marker/sign, or object in general?

    No. That’s not what I said. Do they teach you to do these twisty things at church or what? I said that comparing taking something off and putting something on, is pretty much apples and oranges. But, yes, offensive things should come off.

    Instead of abusing people in the name of a religion they do so in the name of ending superstition-essentially hurting people in the “name of atheism” without using that exact phrase.

    As I’ve said 6 million times, no. Communism tried to get rid of anyone or anything considered a enemy of the state. A percentage of those people were religious leaders. But given that 2/3 of the USSR did not believe in gods, it’s hardly going to come out as a high percentage.

    For example, in the 1938/9 purges, approximately one in seven people killed were priests, etc. “with the great mass of victims being “ordinary” Soviet citizens: workers, peasants, homemakers, teachers, priests, musicians, soldiers, pensioners, ballerinas, beggars.” (from wikipedia)

    Stalin believed that organized religion was a man made way of oppressing the working class. Which is true, IMO. But as soon as the Russian Orthodox Church embraced Stalinism, the churches were allowed to re-open. If he could control them, he was ok with them. Just like with everything else.

    “During World War II, the Church was allowed a revival as a patriotic organization, after the NKVD had recruited the new metropolitan, the first after the revolution, as a secret agent.”

    For more information on his type of regime, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality You’ll find that a major difference between Stalin and Hitler is that Hitler justified his actions by saying that he was doing god’s work. Stalin owned up to what he was doing by proclaiming people to be enemies of the state.

    Since he has done this already it can be surprising to a reasonable person that he actually would have sympathies for a religious official. Define how this makes someone who sees it as such untrustworthy.

    I disagree with your premise. No, a reasonable person would not assume that disrespect = letting someone die, watching a building burn down without calling the fire department, etc. This is an elaborate justification you’ve invented to support your prejudices.

    I wasn’t using Bobby as an excuse to attack Atheists as a group.

    Yes you were. You said that if someone, for example, Bobby, shows disrespect for your little group, then s/he wouldn’t bother to call the police if their building was on fire. Which is absurd. If was another one of your unjustified if… then statements.

    Heidi | Jul 29, 2009 | Reply

  422. @pplr:You are dense as uranium.
    STFU!

    proud kuffar | Jul 29, 2009 | Reply

  423. you go, son! Proud kuffar is the the man!

    hey pplr:

    Hail Satan!

    bobby | Jul 29, 2009 | Reply

  424. Heidi

    Communist governments actively promoted atheism and discriminated against religious believers. Trying to say different because a number of other groups of people were punished, killed, and abused for reasons other than religion is similar to saying Hitler didn’t try to kill gay people because he killed Jews. The reality is that he did both and more. Just as the number of people who suffered under communism included, but was not limited to, the religious.

    Having a long list of reasons to harm people means that harm is done multiple groups of people each for a specific, but different, reason.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_orthodox_church#Persecution_under_Khrushchev_and_Brezhnev

    Look at the heading: Under Communist rule

    “The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the elimination of religion. Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in the schools. Actions toward particular religions, however, were determined by State interests, and most organized religions were never outlawed. Orthodox priests and believers were variously tortured, sent to prison camps, labour camps or mental hospitals, and executed.[19][20] Many Orthodox (along with people of other faiths) were also subjected to psychological punishment or torture and mind control experimentation in order to force them give up their religious convictions.”

    Slatin, being concerned about Stalin, would come to allow religion when he felt it was a tool he could use-in spite of his earlier efforts against it. But Khruschev came to oppose Stalin’s cult of personality (in spite of his part in building it) when he became a leader of the Soviet Union. And yet he, without a cult of personality of his own or support for Stalin’s, suppresed religion.

    and directly under: Persecution under Khrushchev and Brezhnev

    “A new and widespread persecution of the church was subsequently instituted under the leadership of Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev. A second round of repression, harassment and church closures took place between 1959 and 1964 during the rule of Nikita Khrushchev.
    The Church and the government remained on unfriendly terms until 1988. In practice, the most important aspect of this conflict was that openly religious people could not join the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which meant that they could not hold any political office. However, among the general population, large numbers remained religious.”.

    So in spite of having a cult of personality Stalin didn’t always fight religious beliefs (though it is arguable that he tried to corrupt/abuse them). And later leaders who fought against his cult of personality still suppressed religious belief (a general policy of discrimination that sometimes varied between bad and worse depending on the time period).

    The suppression of religion cannot historically be blamed on just Stalin or his building of a cult of personality.

    About the symbols on the exterior of the public library. They aren’t fruit and they are generally related to Greek paganism. As a Christian my self I wasn’t comfortable with them when I first knew about them (meaning I’m sure someone out there will find them offensive) but I can see it as a waste of money to take them down. You potentially opened the door to being a bigger (and more permanent) censor of the relatively harmless than John Ashcroft. That should at least make you question if your willingness to find offense and get rid of the offending object is reaching the unnecessary for a free/tolerant society and perhaps the absurd.

    pplr | Jul 30, 2009 | Reply

  425. pplr you still don’t want to comment on the question you were asked?.

    the removal of objects from a building and adding new objects to a crest/building are not the same thing. If your public library decided to add the muslim moon and star symbol, would you be alright with that? or how about if they decided to add an image of the buda to your state crest?

    WWM | Jul 30, 2009 | Reply

  426. WWM

    I actually addressed the difference between removing old and adding new when I asked Heidi if she was then supportive of my cost-benefit analysis idea.

    If you can preventing new, rather than removing the old, it may pass such an analysis/test.

    pplr | Jul 30, 2009 | Reply

  427. you “are” preventing

    typo

    pplr | Jul 30, 2009 | Reply

  428. Bobby,

    EvilBible.com is Dead

    Large portions of evilbible.com have been considered, dissected and declared fallacious on very many levels.

    Two examples of this fact are as follows:

    Whilst besmirching the Bible for allegedly commanding rape evilbible.com, for some odd reason, neglects to mention the most relevant biblical text related to the biblical view of and law about rape. Why this omission? Who knows, but it would certainly have gotten in the way of a good session of emotive expression of prejudice—it would have discredited evilbible.com to reference this most important text. Indeed, those annoying little facts have an annoying way of getting in the way of good fallacious assertions.

    Whilst besmirching the Bible for allegedly commanding human sacrifice evilbible.com, for some odd reason, neglects to mention that the Bible does not command but condemns human sacrifice. Evilbible.com, for some odd reason, neglects to mention that when the Bible reports that human sacrifices did take place they were carried out by Gentile Pagans who were not worshiping the God of the Bible but various false gods. When “Jews” were performing human sacrifices it was only when they turned away from the God of the Bible and joined Gentile Pagans in worshiping various false gods. Yet, in typical militant activist atheist fashion, evilbible.com does not condemn Gentile Pagans but only condemns the Jews.

    Some of the resources provided in the original post are as follows:

    http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/07/evilbiblecom-is-dead.html

    Mariano | Jul 30, 2009 | Reply

  429. Well, I’ve had a look at the link you posted. All you’re doing here is regurgitating what it says there. What you don’t seem to understand is that the quotes on evilbible.com are taken directly from the bible. You say that these things are alleged. They are not. They are fact. You could look them up yourself. If there are other parts of the bible that contradict those quotes, then that merely underlines what a flawed thing the bible is, all the more reason to point out it’s fallaciousness.

    The bible has god saying to sell your daughters as sex slaves, do human sacrifice, kill those who offend you and many other things that reasonable people, atheists in particular, wouldn’t dream of doing.

    Therefore, I’m not sure what your point is. Do you mean to say that the bible doesn’t actually command those things? If so, the evidence shows you are wrong.

    Have you met pplr? He’s not capable of coherent thought either.

    bobby | Jul 30, 2009 | Reply

  430. I followed one of the links on the site alleging that evilbible.com is dead (it isn’t, another lie) and here it is:

    http://creation.com/atheism#atheist-religion

    This moron makes sweeping claims about what it means to be an atheist. He reminds me of our resident pinhead in that he completely misses the point in his zeal to make atheists out to be monsters. You really should check it out if you want to see just how stupid Christians can be.

    bobby | Jul 30, 2009 | Reply

  431. Holy crap! I just realized that the author of the atheism as religion link I followed is none other than Mariano himself! Wow, you really are an idiot, Mariano. You must be related to pplr.

    bobby | Jul 30, 2009 | Reply

  432. Is there such a thing as a Christian who doesn’t resort to lying to defend their beliefs? I’ve never met one. And we have two here who certainly do. Sad, really.

    bobby | Jul 30, 2009 | Reply

  433. @pplr: Can you please cut the crap with all your flawed analogies? Are you just trying to piss me off so you can run back to your religious moron friends and tell them how angry and unreasonable atheists are, or what? I’m wearing the letters off my keyboard repeatedly pointing out all your twisty games, red herrings and non sequiturs.

    You make a statement twisting what I said into what you wish I said. Then you tell me how wrong your version of what I said is. Then you have an argument with your version. Why do you need to involve me in this conversation you’re having with yourself?

    You did this with both points you addressed in your last post. I’ll tell you what. When you have an actual argument that does not require you to rewrite my script, let me know. Until then, I’m disinclined to continue the conversation with you. Because the more you type, the more you prove Bobby’s points that you’re just here to be an ass.

    @Bobby: You were right. I should have listened. I love the new guy with his “you are wrong. Look I wrote an article that says so.” These are the kind of people who insist the bible is true because it says it is.

    It reminds me of This Guy and his YouTube video talking about giant skeletons from before humans were corrupted or some such nonsense. Except he didn’t bother to find out that the “photos” were composites from a Photoshop contest. Because, as I said over there, if you can believe one thing without evidence, you can believe anything without evidence.

    Heidi | Jul 30, 2009 | Reply

  434. Yeah, I tried to warn you guys that that was what he was up to because I’ve seen these tactics before, taking what you say and twisting it and then demanding that you defend the twist. I did this with a guy on one of my lists for years, and no matter how many times I pointed out what he was doing he just kept at it. Can you believe this new idiot? He claims the bible doesn’t actually say the things it does. Amazing.

    bobby | Jul 30, 2009 | Reply

  435. I guess he missed the bit about Jephthah’s daughter. If the god didn’t want Jep to sacrifice her, then why did he have her come out of the house first, rather than a goat or something? It was the god’s will, right?

    Heidi | Jul 30, 2009 | Reply

  436. Now Heidi, you KNOW god moves in mysterious ways.

    bobby | Jul 30, 2009 | Reply

  437. Here’s a very funny video on You Tube:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fi6V4MhhH7I

    bobby | Jul 30, 2009 | Reply

  438. Now Heidi, you KNOW god moves in mysterious ways.

    Imaginary ways. /nod

    That video was great. LOL.

    Heidi | Jul 30, 2009 | Reply

  439. Heidi,

    You had a points related to what is done in the “name” of atheism, things you find offensive, and Bobby in your comments to me. You also talked about Jephthah’s daughter (which was mentioned since my last comment).

    About point 1:

    Are you denying that torture was used as a method (in the mentioned place and time) to convince people to become atheists? This can be answered with a “yes” or “no”. You can explain why but please start any answer with a yes or no.

    About point 2:

    Where you referring to new things being made or old ones that already were? WWM picked up on that issue and I pointed out how what I said addressed it.

    About point 3-Bobby

    It is possible I went to far.

    However, at least some of his statements to/about me appear to have often been devoid of rationality and based on raw emotion (which is why my mentioning of the possibility he has an Emotional Disability was a serious one). They aren’t just disrespectful but continually so (the difference between an insult and an ingrained pattern that runs deeper than the norm), implying he is a bigot.

    A problem with bigots (look at the actions of KKK members, skinheads, and so on) is that they sometimes don’t hold themselves to practices of legal/social decency when it comes to respecting others. Not every bigot is a big enough one to go out a beat up a member of a group that is the target of his/her hate nor to avoid calling emergency services for for one but some are. So fair question is how big a bigot is Bobby?

    And in spite of his claim that he is only against those who try to convert others he hasn’t stopped sending insults at me even after I pointed out that the reason I first commented here wasn’t to convert people here to Christianity. Meaning that when it comes to expressing his hate/anger, he may not even limit himself to following his own rules.

    About me using him to tarnish all atheism. That is only true if you are subject to the idea (foolhardy no matter what group you are talking about) that members of a given group or so decent/reasonable that not a single one of them could ever do something bad or harmful (not very realistic).

    I pointed to people who were (mostly if not all) unapologetically atheists who treated others fairly-this indicates that I wasn’t attacking all atheists (I praised them). This means I was talking about Bobby rather than all atheists.

    I’ve already pointed to his personal bigotry-something that many atheists don’t share. And this also means that I was talking about Bobby rather than all atheists.

    It is pretty reasonable to say that I was talking about Bobby rather than all atheists.

    Now you aren’t a member of the group who he has a bias against. Which means he may get along with you-but it isn’t how he treats members of groups other than the one(s) he/she hates that defines a bigot.

    About point 4- Jephthah’s daughter

    I read the entire chapter looking for and counting up comments that said God either wanted or was pleased with him making a human sacrifice of his daughter (assuming Jephthah did kill her). The number I found was zero.

    There are 2 theories I have heard about this particular event. One is that his sacrifice was placing his daughter in religious service (where like a nun she would not be allowed to have sex-and thus may not be able to provide him with grandchildren). And the other is that he actually killed her (in which case some have said this serves as evidence he was adopting pagan rather then Jewish practices).

    No matter which theory (if either) is true there is no claim made in this chapter that God wanted her to be killed. But there are, in the Old Testament, places where killing people as religious human sacrifices was pointed to as a very bad thing (such as in Deuteronomy 12:31) and not to be done.

    Using this chapter to condemn the Jewish, Christian, and perhaps Islamic religions is using assumptions to justify a bias.

    I’m not sure if you are saying some of the things you are because you are either mad or in denial, but if you really are the reasonable/rational person you’ve said you are you know you should stop and address these points before trying to accuse me of trickery.

    pplr | Jul 31, 2009 | Reply

  440. typo

    “Where you referring to”

    should be

    “Were you referring to”

    pplr | Jul 31, 2009 | Reply

  441. @Mariano:Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!
    No,I don’t like you at all.

    proud kuffar | Jul 31, 2009 | Reply

  442. @pplr

    Nice dissertation you’ve written there. Didn’t the blog owner ask you not to do that? You’re an asshole. A lying, scumbag asshole. Doesn’t matter about the religion part, you’re a failure as a human being. Now why don’t you do what Proud Kuffar told you to do and STFU.

    bobby | Jul 31, 2009 | Reply

  443. I could swear I said I was done talking to him.

    About Jep’s daughter, though, if his god didn’t want it to happen, then why didn’t he stop it? Or make something else come out of the house first? He is supposedly omniscient, so obviously he knew what Jep meant by sacrifice. He is supposedly all powerful, so he should have been able to stop the sacrifice. He did not. And if you have to rewrite the book so that a sacrifice isn’t really a sacrifice, that ought to tell you something. Unlike his god, Jep didn’t know who or what was going to come out of his house. It could have been the family dog. Was he going to send the dog into religious service?

    Also, you are doing that thing again where you are trying to fit me into your script. My point as far as Jep’s situation was the approval by inaction. But yes, I do paint all the monotheist desert god religions with the same brush. Each is as bereft of evidence as the next. (As are any other supernatural claims, but none of those are trying to co-opt my government.) So if you are trying to do that thing again where you want me to feel guilty for dismissing evidence-free claims, it’s not going to work. Again.

    I’m not sure if you are saying some of the things you are because you are either mad or in denial, but if you really are the reasonable/rational person you’ve said you are

    There it is. Proof of Bobby’s concept yet again. If I’m not perfectly polite to you and I don’t kowtow to your wacky unsupported beliefs, no matter how long you hammer the same invalid points at me, then I am unreasonable, and you can go home safe in the knowledge that your little worldview is protected from the baddies. (Yes, I know that was a run-on sentence. It was a run-on concept.)

    You need to keep up your little twisty button-pushy game until you’ve gotten everyone to conform to your “see how rude they are when I’m reasonable to them” diatribe. You’re not being reasonable. Don’t fool yourself into thinking that you are. You’re running the script of the con game. Get them to agree to your false premise and you’re halfway home. It smacks of desperation to me. It’s like you don’t even believe what you’re shoveling, so you have to keep pretending to prove that people with other opinions are just unreasonable and biased.

    (man, I even edited it to cut the length down)

    Heidi | Jul 31, 2009 | Reply

  444. “A problem with bigots (look at the actions of KKK members, skinheads, and so on)”

    do you even realize that the only bigot groups you have listed are christian groups?

    WWM | Jul 31, 2009 | Reply

  445. No, he’s far too stupid to realize something like that. And he’ll just come up with some excuse for it. He’s only here because he can’t stand that we’re allowed to point out how lame his religion is.

    bobby | Jul 31, 2009 | Reply

  446. He’s only here because he can’t stand that we’re allowed to point out how lame his religion is.

    I need to take brevity lessons from you.

    Heidi | Jul 31, 2009 | Reply

  447. Bobby,

    Evilbible.com is Dead.

    Large portions of evilbible.com being considered, dissected and declared fallacious on very many levels.

    Two examples of this fact are as follows:

    Whilst besmirching the Bible for allegedly commanding rape evilbible.com, for some odd reason, neglects to mention the most relevant biblical text related to the biblical view of and law about rape. Why this omission? Who knows, but it would certainly have gotten in the way of a good session of emotive expression of prejudice—it would have discredited evilbible.com to reference this most important text. Indeed, those annoying little facts have an annoying way of getting in the way of good fallacious assertions.

    Whilst besmirching the Bible for allegedly commanding human sacrifice evilbible.com, for some odd reason, neglects to mention that the Bible does not command but condemns human sacrifice. Evilbible.com, for some odd reason, neglects to mention that when the Bible reports that human sacrifices did take place they were carried out by Gentile Pagans who were not worshiping the God of the Bible but various false gods. When “Jews” were performing human sacrifices it was only when they turned away from the God of the Bible and joined Gentile Pagans in worshiping various false gods. Yet, in typical militant activist atheist fashion, evilbible.com does not condemn Gentile Pagans but only condemns the Jews.

    Links to the posts which provide the evidence are found at this URL:

    http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/07/evilbiblecom-is-dead.html

    Mariano | Jul 31, 2009 | Reply

  448. Dead horse is beaten.

    “Your book is broken. It doesn’t make any sense.” -River Tam, Firefly

    Heidi | Jul 31, 2009 | Reply

  449. Evilbible.com is Dead.

    I just typed in the URL and went right to it. I haddn’t seen it before. Thanks!

    The fact that rape is condemned in one part of the bible and condoned in another is a lesson in contradictions, don’t you think?

    Nice dissertation you’ve written there. Didn’t the blog owner ask you not to do that? You’re an asshole. A lying, scumbag asshole.

    Yes I did, but that’ my job, not yours. Pplr, please keep it down to one screen per comment, and one comment at a time.

    More importantly, Bobby, behave. While my blog posts may occasionally use similar language to refer to people, they are public figures who have earned the derision. So knock it off in here.

    Dave Hitt | Jul 31, 2009 | Reply

  450. Mariano…

    why don’t you actually look up the passages mentioned on evilbible.com You will read exactly what that webpage says you will find. the fact that the bible contradicts itself does not make your statements true, it only adds more argument against you.

    WWM | Jul 31, 2009 | Reply

  451. Jeez, I leave for a few days and insta-spam. Can someone quickly fill me in? I’m too ADD at the moment to read through everything.

    blufindr | Jul 31, 2009 | Reply

  452. @Dave: I hadn’t heard of it before, either. Was it mentioned before Mariano brought it up? I have it bookmarked now.

    @blufindr: You didn’t really miss much. SSDD.

    Heidi | Jul 31, 2009 | Reply

  453. @Heidi: If that is a Stephen King reference, I could kiss you.

    blufindr | Aug 1, 2009 | Reply

  454. Did we forget a few active atheist extremists in Germany, Russia and China killing 10′s of millions of people in this century? It’s not fair to paint a group by their extremists. You also need to acknowledge religions that do a good job of denouncing and not tolerating violence.
    Theists are also donate more time and money to charities and the community. There are good points that you will not see.

    Ann | Aug 1, 2009 | Reply

  455. @Ann

    If you look at straight percentages of people who donate money you will find more religious people donating. But if you compare numbers to the percent of people who are christian, muslim, atheist, whatever, the percentages are much more similar. It boils down to a percentage of the population donates time and money, and if you break down who among them are what religion or lack of religion they are, you will find numbers almost identical to the percentages that are each of those religions/atheist.

    WWM | Aug 1, 2009 | Reply

  456. @Ann

    If you had bothered to follow the thread you would see we’ve completely dismantled the lie that communists do anything in the name of atheism. This is really getting old, this constant Christian lie.

    As to Theists “donating” time and money, they do it as a means of spreading their superstition. It’s hardly noble.

    You are the one wearing blinders.

    bobby | Aug 1, 2009 | Reply

  457. blufindr, heidi, and bobby, some of the things you have said have given me a great amount of respect for all three of you. I wish I could find more people around like you guys.

    WWM | Aug 1, 2009 | Reply

  458. WWM– that’s not what I’ve read in multiple studies, give me your reference.

    bobby– Just because you already made the point doesn’t mean it’s valid. Those regimes killed people because they were religious and disturbed the regime’s non-religious view of perfect social order. And theists don’t only donate more to charities (which you may be able to describe as “spreading” superstition) but also community and humanitarian efforts unrelated to religious organizations. But you’ll just keep believing what you choose. Don’t give up the faith, man!

    Ann | Aug 1, 2009 | Reply

  459. Your lack of ability to think rationally is laughable at best. Are you then telling me that if someone goes out and kills another person because they don’t like something they’re doing and the killer happens to be an atheist, then they’ve killed in the name of atheism? Because that’s what naturally follows from saying that communists kill in the name of atheism, which is what you claim. It’s irrational, it’s false, it’s Christian propaganda and it’s stupid.

    Christian missionaries do the work they do to spread the disease they blindly follow, that’s not what I believe, it’s a fact. You are brainwashed. Get over yourself. I have no faith, you’re the one with faith, it’s for the retarded, not thinking people.

    bobby | Aug 1, 2009 | Reply

  460. And if I keep believing what I choose, how does that differ from you? See, there’s that Christian bullshit again, if you do it, it’s right, if I do it it’s wrong. Take a course in logic, you’re badly in need of one. But then again, if you did, you’d see your belief system is ludicrous, and you can’t have that now, can you?

    bobby | Aug 1, 2009 | Reply

  461. Since they don’t believe in a specific god there is no way to show them saying, “I did this because I don’t believe in god”. So their worldview is their belief system. And they clearly killed people religious and other because of that world view. You are the one who cannot follow rationally. This whole thread is based on anti-believer propaganda relying wholly on the actions of a few probably insane individuals. So don’t lecture me about propaganda. If it weren’t propaganda you could acknowledge that believers also do many positive things, in many, many times greater numbers than the cooks. The disease that you say Christians spread I have seen make people believe in themselves enough to acheive great personal educational and other goals. I’ve seen it help people do things for helpless people who had no way to repay their kindness. I’ve seen it give social and emotional support when the person’s reality did not support any optimism; etc. etc. etc.

    My reference to your faith was negative because I gave clear examples that all theists are not like was portrayed at the beginning of this thread, and not all atheists were immune to the horrible inhumanity given as a believer’s trait; yet faith in the superiority of atheism would not even allow you to consider these things. But if your faith makes you happy– cling to it!!! Christians don’t make others believe like they do–it’s the atheist communists and the Muslims that do that.

    Happy meaningless survival!!!

    Ann | Aug 1, 2009 | Reply

  462. oops *kooks*

    Ann | Aug 1, 2009 | Reply

  463. @blufindr: Now that you mention it, I probably did pick that up from him. I’m a “constant reader.” ;-) In the end, everything’s a King reference. lol. And Everything’s Eventual.

    @WWM: Maybe at Atheist Nexus? No god botherers allowed. Of course, neither am I, because my ZIP code starts with 0 and theyu think it’s invalid. ZIP code discrimination, I tell you.

    @Bobby: Looks like somebody’s mad that he lost the argument, and he’s out recruiting fellow pod people.

    @Ann:
    Christians don’t make others believe like they do

    That may be the funniest thing I’ve read all week. Thanks.

    Heidi | Aug 1, 2009 | Reply

  464. My god you’re stupid. Yes, their world view (that’s two words, not one, again your lack of ability is showing) is their belief system. So is yours. How do they differ? Christians killed in the name of Christianity, Communists killed in the name of communism, not atheism. Why is that so hard to understand? I suspect because if you realized it then you’d have nothing to drag atheists down into the hole you’re in. Therefore, I’m not the one who can’t follow rationally, you are, twit.

    Propaganda is what it is, and it’s the stock on trade of Christians. All the accomplishments that you mention are accomplished without the hogwash of religion by millions every day. Open your eyes!

    Again, I’m not burdened by faith, I’m far to intelligent for that, you’re the one labouring under superstition. And finally, my survival is far from meaningless, unlike yours.

    bobby | Aug 1, 2009 | Reply

  465. Atheist propaganda. Now there’s a meaningless phrase. Atheism is the denial that there’s any reason to believe in a god since there’s no evidence of one. How is that propaganda? Christianity is propaganda by it’s very nature, it seeks to convince people of things that never happened. What an imbecile.

    bobby | Aug 1, 2009 | Reply

  466. Heidi

    You haven’t addressed a couple of the points I mentioned. Please do so with point 1:

    “Are you denying that torture was used as a method (in the mentioned place and time) to convince people to become atheists? This can be answered with a “yes” or “no”. You can explain why but please start any answer with a yes or no.”

    Also God likely doesn’t approve of a mugging when it happens either, but the mugger is the one who makes the choice to commit a crime. We have free will to do bad or stupid things.

    WWM

    A bigot is a bigot be he/she Atheist, Christian, Hindu, Muslim, and so on.

    Dave

    Sorry, I’ll try to keep things shorter.

    pplr | Aug 1, 2009 | Reply

  467. @pplr: If it wasn’t clear the first time, then I’ll say it again. I’m not playing. Game over. Watch the ending credits and listen to the theme song. Your whole god-bothering-aggression thing where you keep repeating the same inane points and arguing in circles with yourself until you’re the last one with a chair? Bored now. I know this tactic well. It was big in my family while I was growing up. Your plan is to shout everybody else down, and pretend you won, because you really don’t have anything valid or substantial to say. All you’re doing is wasting my time.

    Heidi | Aug 1, 2009 | Reply

  468. bobby– I’m ‘stupid’ and an ‘imbecile’ because I don’t agree with your opinion. Now, there’s a triumph of ideas. Of course you don’t think you are spreading propaganda, because it’s your dogma, you gotta believe. Dude, I accept that.

    But, for other people who are still open-minded; propaganda is only showing selective facts about something to convince someone of your side of the argument. Starting with the first statements of this thread and throughout all of bobby’s that I have read only very extreme examples of believer’s bad behavior has been acknowledged. No mention or acceptance of constructive, helpful things that theists do (at a higher rate than non-believers btw). If this were a Christian blog and someone used Stalin, Mao and Hitler’s actions to impugn all atheists, I would chime in and say that I know many decent, kind atheists; and it’s not fair to try to paint them all with that same brush. That would not be propaganda.

    But you are fighting for your cause, what you believe in contrary to any pesky facts that get in the way. I just don’t like propaganda that starts whipping up public feeling against my family and me. So I am not going to ignore blatant examples of it. This is still a country with free expression and religion, something that those amazing, believing founders really put themselves in peril to ensure, so I’ll enjoy it while it lasts.

    Ann | Aug 1, 2009 | Reply

  469. heidi– give me any mainstream example of a Christian forcing their ideas on a non-believer. Or you could pull out the crazies from the beginning of this thread.

    Ann | Aug 1, 2009 | Reply

  470. I’ll give you a million examples. They’re called missionaries. They go to countries where people lack critical thinking skills and shove their superstition down the throats of their poor victims. That’s a fact.

    No, you’re no an imbecile because you don’t agree with me, again you’re twisting the facts. You’re an imbecile because you keep insisting I have faith and a belief system when all evidence is to the contrary. That makes you an imbecile.

    I have no dogma, I have no propaganda, I have no cause. I’m not trying to convert people, I leave that to the idiots who buy into superstition. What I have is a rational understanding that there is no evidence of any god. Look up the meaning of the word dogma. You obviously don’t know what it is or you wouldn’t keep embarrassing yourself. You must be related to pplr.

    You want acceptance that Christians do good things? Okay, I accept that. What I don’t accept is that they need to believe in fairy tales to do those things. Atheists do them all the time, in greater numbers, contrary to your lie.

    bobby | Aug 1, 2009 | Reply

  471. And as for you vaunted founding fathers, if you do a little research you’ll find that most of them were atheists. Yes, that’s right. Jefferson and Franklin in particular were scathing in private correspondance about religion. They just couldn’t say it in public because, wait for it, religion had it’s grubby little fingers around the throats of the public.

    Your reference to a free country shows your typical American myopia. There are people from other countries here, twit. America is not the be all and end all. Get over yourself.

    bobby | Aug 1, 2009 | Reply

  472. If you have no cause to defend why do you spend so much time here defending your non-cause?

    Sorry about the Ameri-centric comment, that was myopic. However, in China, I would not be allowed to have this conversation and in Canada and some Euro. countries expressing some of my religious beliefs are punishable. So, I do appreciate America, sorry.

    Keep the faith about atheistic superiority! I’ve never seen any research about volunteerism, etc. that supports that belief, but you believing it is apparently what matters to you.

    Ann | Aug 1, 2009 | Reply

  473. @Ann: Do you honestly not know how Christianity was spread across the planet? Seriously? If so, I am flabbergasted. Crusades, Conquistadors, torture…

    Forced Conversion
    Christian Aggression
    Forced Conversion of Jews
    Christianization
    How Did Native Americans Respond to Christianity
    Native Americans and Christianity

    Did you think christians just showed up in other parts of the world and the people there went “oh, yes, you are right! Everything we ever believed is wrong! Thank you for bringing us a new religion and destroying our old one.” If somebody did the same thing to you, would you thank them? As Bobby said, the whole point of missionaries is to convert the savages in other parts of the world. And that is precisely what they did. Entire cultures and languages were wiped out in the name of Christianity.

    And today, Evangelicals want to write all the laws of my country to conform to Christian teachings, regardless of what anyone else might believe.

    Also, Hitler was a Catholic with the full support of the Vatican. Just a few Hitler quotes:

    “I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.”
    ( Adolf Hitler, from John Toland [Pulitzer Prize winner], Adolf Hitler, New York: Anchor Publishing, 1992, p. 507. )

    “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”
    ( Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Ralph Mannheim, ed., New York: Mariner Books, 1999, p. 65. )

    “I may not be a light of the church, a pulpiteer, but deep down I am a pious man, and believe that whoever fights bravely in defense of the natural laws framed by God and never capitulates will never be deserted by the Lawgiver, but will, in the end, receive the blessings of Providence.”
    ( Adolf Hitler, in a speech delivered on July 5, 1944; from Charles Bracelen Flood, Hitler: The Path to Power, Boston, Mass: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1989, p. 208. )

    “We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.”
    ( Adolf Hitler, in a speech delivered in Berlin, October 24, 1933. )

    “Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise.”
    ( Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Ralph Mannheim, ed., New York: Mariner Books, 1999, p. 383. )

    Heidi | Aug 1, 2009 | Reply

  474. Whoa, your religious beliefs can’t be expressed in Canada?? Canada?? You must be thinking of a different Canada than I am, or you must have some seriously disturbed beliefs.

    Heidi | Aug 1, 2009 | Reply

  475. 1. Hitler also said to France that he wanted peace w/ them and that he would never persecute people because of their religion. Trying to consolidate power in a Christian country, he said many things public to keep that support. Privately he stated that Christianity was disgusting, that his Socialism could not co-exist w/ religion and had started to act against Catholic clergy by the end of his reign.

    2. No, just the traditional ones that say to avoid homosexuality. I know your belief system informs your opinion differently, but I don’t think you should be silenced.

    Ann | Aug 1, 2009 | Reply

  476. My bad about not mentioning that I was talking about current centuries. I can’t really speak to people hundreds of years ago that had political power and used it to ignore the text that their supposed faith was based on. Any Christian church today condemns the Crusades and anything like it. You know, “Love one another,” “turn the other cheek”, etc.

    Ann | Aug 1, 2009 | Reply

  477. I have never seen any evidence to support Hitler being an atheist. Do you have some, or are you repeating what you’ve been told? I posted my evidence with quote sources.

    There are still missionaries today, and they still deny aid to people who won’t convert. I already had this conversation up above with pplr.

    Today, evangelicals are insistent that they must make this a Christian nation. So where is the room in that for people who don’t convert?

    Who, exactly, in Canada or anywhere else, is silencing you from hating on gay people?

    And why is it ok to ignore the bits where shellfish are an abomination, where you can’t wear linen and cotton together, and where you can’t eat a cheeseburger, but it’s not ok to stop hating on gay people? Is there a guidebook that tells you which bits of the bible you can ignore?

    Heidi | Aug 1, 2009 | Reply

  478. Heidi

    You have seen plenty of evidence that communists were atheists and have tried to force atheism (as well as other things) on people.

    It is ironic that you point out the historical events to Ann of where governmental force pushed Christianity on others but run from addressing similar historical events aimed at spreading atheism via force.

    Ann

    Christianity (like many beliefs) was spread by force at various times throughout history. There were also times different groups of Christians would use force on each other. This wasn’t along the lines of bobby’s misleading reference to missionaries but people actually hurting and killing each other. We should be glad these times over and hope they stay that way.

    pplr | Aug 1, 2009 | Reply

  479. @pplr: Please stop talking to me. I don’t think I can be any clearer than that. You’re here for exactly the reason Bobby said you were, and I’m done with your game.

    Heidi | Aug 1, 2009 | Reply

  480. Heidi,
    Unlike you and bobby, and the gay activists harrassing Prop 8 supporters, I don’t jump right to hating and namecalling of people I disagree with. So although I don’t hate gay people, the hate speech laws in Canada forbid people, even in church to say that they believe that people should not act on homosexual urges.

    No, I don’t have any quotes of Hitler saying, “I am an atheist.” However, he said that Christianity was a pest that needed to be destroyed. His feelings for Judaism were quite clear. He didn’t give allegience to any other recognizable god. So when he deifies some of the atheist ideas of the day (evolution and “natural order”) that allow him to ignore all moral codes of believers, I will classify him as a non-believer. But if you do not choose to label him that, fine, but there is plenty of evidence that he was not a believer of Christianity or any other recognizable religion.

    You still have never acknowledged that people have been tortured and killed because of their belief in Russia. I don’t understand this “game” thing you are so offended at w/ pplr. I think it’s ’cause you don’t want to admit that…?

    I’m not familiar w/ other Christian faith’s giving policies, but my own does not deny humanitarian aid because of faith. Many times it freely mingles our aid dollars with the Red Cross/Red Crescent and other aid organizations.

    Ann | Aug 1, 2009 | Reply

  481. Oh, and missionaries, I think you would probably think that your belief system is superior to those of the people that commit the atrocities listed at the top of the thread.

    And I believe my belief system is superior to those that require female circumcision, or witch doctors that drain poor people’s finances, or any of the atrocities at the top of the thread, etc., I’ve seen my church help people through addictions to become healthy and happy, give an incest survivor a loving place to come and have friends who include her and cheer her up, strengthen marriages which statistically helps children’s well-being, and give women and children a network of trusted people to turn to with problems, and teach teenage girls that they don’t have to be sex objects to have any value. The list goes on and on including my family which from neighborhood and background should have been white trash with many of the problems and lack of accomplishment that my peers had, but I have many things to be thankful to my church for so I’m not upset that they are spreading their message to others.

    You all draw a moral line, too, as evidenced by the condemnation of the actions detailed above. It’s only where that line is that is different with us. I’m just honest about making moral judgements.

    Ann | Aug 1, 2009 | Reply

  482. Call it what you want. telling people that they must not be who they are is hate speech. That would be why it’s illegal. so yes, you do have twisted values. Yay, Canada.

    No, I don’t have any quotes of Hitler saying, “I am an atheist.” However, he said that Christianity was a pest that needed to be destroyed.

    Quote please. You don’t have anything to back up any of your assertions. You just like the sound of them.

    I don’t understand this “game” thing you are so offended at w/ pplr.

    He does. Scroll up and read the multiple times I’ve already explained my position if you’d also like to understand.

    witch doctors that drain poor people’s finances

    Televangelsits don’t do that. Oh, wait.

    And I’ve seen secular groups that do all the positive things your church people do. What is your point? I’ve said repeatedly, if you’d bothered to read the whole discussion, that my biggest problem with religion, ALL religion, not just your precious Jesus-woo, is that it encourages unquestioning belief in the supernatural without evidence. Your dear little “run and tell mommy so I get help with the baddies” pplr knows I think this, and he keeps changing the subject because he can’t argue with it. So he keeps repeating things he’s already said, and that have already been discussed to death.

    Heidi | Aug 1, 2009 | Reply

  483. Heidi– here are some quotes for you. I think they show what I’m talking about. The compiler doesn’t believe these show atheism, but his reverence for natural law and dislike for Christianity and Judaism make me conclude that he was. You and other readers can be the judge.

    “The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle, by allowing the survival of the fittest. Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its
    logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.”

    - Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens, trans., (Oxford, 1953), Hitler’s Table-Talk, p. 51

    Then these from this version of records from a personal secretary.

    Hitler’s Table Talk (Adolf Hitler, London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1953).
    Night of 11th-12th July, 1941
    “National Socialism and religion cannot exist together….
    “The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity….
    “Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.” (p 6 & 7)
    14th October, 1941, midday
    “The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death…. When understanding of the universe has become widespread… Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity….
    “Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity…. And that’s why someday its structure will collapse….
    “…the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little….
    “Christianity the liar….
    “We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State.” (p 49-52)
    19th October, 1941, night
    “The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.”

    If you believe his public pronouncements that you quoted earlier in sppt of his Christianity, you would be a French person suprised at the invasion, or a Jew surprised to be persecuted and killed. Publicly he said those things would not happen.

    Ann | Aug 1, 2009 | Reply

  484. Oh, I think televangelists are con artists, too, not tolerated in my faith tradition.

    Ann | Aug 1, 2009 | Reply

  485. Oh, and I don’t know what secular groups you’re talking about, I hope they are out there. I don’t see any that reach out to some of the poor unsophisticated people that regularly benefit from the programs of my religion. Aside from my church (and marginally my schools), no one really cared anything about my family. Maybe you could tell me about some of these groups?

    Ann | Aug 1, 2009 | Reply

  486. Why do I spend so much time defending my non-cause. See, this is why I say you’re retarded. I do nothing of the sort. I have nothing to defend. I attack those who would shove their beliefs down the throats of those who don’t want it. How is that defending anything? It’s not. You’re just regurgitating the crap you’ve been indocrtinated with. I’m only saying there’s not one shred of evidence for any of those beliefs and it pisses you off that that’s true. That’s why you have to try to drag me down into the hole you’re in. Won’t work. I’ve been doing this for more than 40 years now, you’re still wet behind the ears. It’s a zero sum game for you, you’re just not bright enough to figure that out. I don’t know, maybe you ate a lot of paint chips as a child, or the doctor dropped you on your head at delivery, whatever.

    Maybe you and pplr should get together and breed. You could produce some little pod people (thanks for that on blufindr!) of your own.

    bobby | Aug 1, 2009 | Reply

  487. The genes stop here!

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8180116.stm

    Nate Lockwood | Aug 1, 2009 | Reply

  488. @Ann: So you have summarily decided that even though he never once said that he didn’t believe in gods, he must be an atheist. Perhaps you’re unclear on this, but anger or irritation at the church is not the same thing as atheism. Lack of belief in gods = atheism. I spent 8 years pretty damned irritated with George W. Bush, but I’m not an abushist. I think the evidence points to the fact that he’s real.

    Oh, I think televangelists are con artists, too, not tolerated in my faith tradition.

    If you’re going to lump all atheists together, regardless of motivation, then I’m going to lump all Christians together regardless of motivation.

    Oh, and I don’t know what secular groups you’re talking about

    You honestly don’t think there are secular charities?? Wow.

    I don’t see any that reach out to some of the poor unsophisticated people that regularly benefit from the programs of my religion.

    Translation: “And whatever you come up with, I’m going to call inferior anyway.” Nice of you to call poor people unsophisticated, though.

    Aside from my church (and marginally my schools), no one really cared anything about my family.

    If you’re evangelical and always pushing your beliefs on people, then unfortunately I have to admit that I’m not surprised. Does your group go out of its way to help the Jehovah’s Witnesses that show up at your doors on the weekend?

    Heidi | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  489. Maybe you could tell me about some of these groups?

    The comment submission won’t complete as a list, or with the links in it, but these all have websites if you want more information.

    Secular Humanist Aid and Relief Effort, Habitat for Humanity, Marine Toys for Tots, Feeding America, The Nature Conservancy, Planned Parenthood, American Cancer Society
    World Wildlife Fund, Fred Hollows Foundation

    Heidi | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  490. Heidi, you know what the first thing the pod people would do if they could get control of a government? They’d ban free speech. They’re here because it pisses them off that we can say what we like. Think about it.

    bobby | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  491. @Nate: Justice for Madeleine Kara. Good.

    But I understand your sentiment. If someone sits by and does nothing while his (or her) child dies, that someone should not be breeding.

    Heidi | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  492. @Bobby: Yep, I suspect they would. people have been coddling superstition and occultism for far too long. It’s time to reveal it for what it is. Podlings hate that.

    Heidi | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  493. @ann

    “But you are fighting for your cause, what you believe in contrary to any pesky facts that get in the way.”

    now isn’t that just the most ironic thing a christian can say? There has never been 1 fact put forward to give any validity to religion. There are plenty of false statements given to “prove” religion.

    Also, nobody here has said there are no good people who are theists. It has been stated by myself and others that organized religion is bad. That is an opinion prolly 90% or more of atheists hold. And it is based in fact. Looking at what religion has brought the world; Hitler, The crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, etc.

    The “good” things often come down to opinion. Missionary work is not good for all involved. Those who have your religion shoved down their throats I would say would definitely not see it as good.

    WWM | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  494. @Heidi: Wah! ::e-kiss::

    Don’t tell my boyfriend. ;)

    @pplr: Torture was used to convince people to become atheist? Please, try to show some irrefutable evidence of this.

    How does a being who does not exist (dis)approve of anything? We do indeed have free will — but this is where God fails abysmally. For him to know everything, he would also know where we are going to go, and what we are going to do. If someone else already knows what is going to happen, can you truly say that what you have is free will? Seems to me that playing to someone else’s script i.e. determinism, does not constitute free will at all.

    @Ann: Being an Asian, I think I can safely say that expressing Christian values isn’t going to get you prosecuted anywhere in my continent. Being an atheist, on the other hand…

    Try looking up the Stolen Generation sometime. Christian missionaries stole, that’s right, stole children from their homes, under the belief that Aboriginal pseudo-paganism was wrong and their own tritheist religion is correct (The Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit… that’s three, right?). Today, there are thousands, if not millions, of Aborigines who do not know their own culture or identity, thanks to overzealous Christians.

    I’ve never refuted that there are Christians who do good things. I will, however, fight tooth and nail against any doctrine that allows for such murderous and damaging action as has been exhibited so many times by Christians (and to a lesser extent, other theists).

    Where are the quotes of Hitler denouncing Christianity? Proof, I demand proof!

    No rede should ever be used for suppression of a culture, or for something in which people have no say. I didn’t choose to like holes as well as poles, but that doesn’t necessarily make me “evil” and deserving of prosecution.

    For that matter, what (and who) I do is nobody else’s business. Telling me to suppress my urge to lick carpet is about as fruitful as telling you to stop preaching your outdated values, apparently. Besides, isn’t it rather ironic that you’re complaining of being suppressed, when you’re attempting to oppress others?

    My belief system i.e. atheism, is also “superior to those that require female circumcision, or witch doctors that drain poor people’s finances, or any of the atrocities at the top of the thread, etc.” Difference between you and I, I don’t have to rely on some preternatural haxx0r to be a good person, or to help people get through abuse, addiction, or any other trauma they may experience. I also spend a lot of my time teaching my friends, their children, and my own nieces and nephews that they do not need to succumb to anyone else’s views (whether it be about sex or anything else) to be worth anything. Surprise surprise, I can do this without a church or any kind of religious backing.

    Tell me, how am I being dishonest in any way about making moral judgments? You’re quite right, my own line in the sand is in a far different place to yours.

    To add to Heidi’s list: Here in Australia, we have the Red Cross, Marie Stopes Centre, Oxfam, Australian Heart Foundation, MS Australia, Guide Dogs Victoria, Lifeline, Save the Children, Starlight Children’s Foundation… I’m sure if I tried, I could find more.

    In fact, here, it seems that atheists and non-denominational charities and groups do more to help than theist groups do. Hark at that.

    blufindr | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  495. You guys are so helpful listing those organizations for me, thanks, but if you read my entry I was talking about groups that reach out to unsophisticated people (yes, many poor people I have known, including my own parents, are unsophisticated, not really an insult) and help them make constructive life choices. None of these groups you listed would have helped me to stay off drugs and alcohol, be motivated to help other people, support my decision not to be used by lots of boys and men as many of my friends were, go to college and develop other talents as my church did and does with others everyday.

    Blufindr- I did give quotes, you can scroll back. And where in Australia would you be prosecuted for atheism?

    Heidi- I haven’t lumped all atheists together, my only point here was to argue against the anti-believer propaganda on this thread, which I have done w/ out generalizing or namecalling.

    WWM- you are now demonstrating your faith in things not supported by facts. I have given strong evidence that Hitler was not a Christian. I am willing to concede that bad things have been done in the name of Christianity. They do not fit the definition of Christianity as in people who follow Christ’s teachings, he was all about love and forgiveness and gentleness. So these people took His name in vain, and I have never heard any modern Christians defending compulsive efforts to spread the faith.

    I’m glad you guys help others, I’m just saying that sometimes religion helps people that don’t have a family support system and it is big and pretty successful and helping people be successful and happy. I’m not pissed off at anything you guys have said, just trying to correct propaganda. You guys are the ones who seem angry when Christians dare to take the bait and take on your self-serving, “atheists are superior” nonsense on this board.

    And for people who have no cause and no beliefs you fight pretty hard against accepting any facts that contradict your assumptions and to convert us stupid, imbecilic, [fill in your other adjectives here] Christians to your enlightened way of thought.

    And I have bright, questioning children with whom I answer questions and let them come to their own conclusions. Colleges are falling all over themselves to get them in the doors, so maybe not pod children. But don’t let me stand in the way of your assumptions.

    Ann | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  496. @Ann: I’m poor, and I’m still somewhat sophisticated. Don’t generalise.

    Besides which, um. Hi. Did you end up looking up the charities I listed? Both the Red Cross and Oxfam participate actively in assisting men and women who are in dire financial trouble. More than once, I’ve required help from both these organisations, due to matters of abuse which I will not get into here. A very close friend of mine, one that I previously mentioned had passed away, had worked fervently for Oxfam and persuaded a rather large number of people to “make constructive life choices”.

    Pardon. I simply skimmed over a great deal of what was written. It’s late, and I’m tired of lengthy posts with few, if any, breaks in formatting to indicate new ideas. ::shrugs::

    Honestly, I don’t genuinely trust Hitler’s multiple statements regarding religion. He has flip-flopped too many times, in my opinion, for us to definitively label him as atheist or no.

    Try publicly vocalising atheist views. It’s not a violent repression, but I’ve been thrown out of a number of classes and groups for not believing in a supernatural being.

    I don’t have a family support system. Recently, I contacted a chaplain for assistance, for the first time in over a decade. I have yet to hear back. This is not an isolated incident. Given the nature of many of the disputes I have had with family, and others, many religious groups will simply have nothing to do with me.

    I don’t believe atheists are superior. I do, however, believe theists are rather deluded. How else do you explain complete faith in something which possesses no tangible proof?

    blufindr | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  497. Blufindr’s experience with “haven’t heard back”
    typifies you christers treatment of us.

    We athies have the last laugh tho.
    There is a strong tendency to poverty among you
    christers! Hahahaha!

    Put that in your pipe and smoke it,christers!

    proud kuffar | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  498. blufindr

    Please see above for reference to what Heidi and I were talking about. Look for my first (and longest) comment on July 30th for the reference about torture being used to try to make people become atheists.

    The comment about free will was an explanation given to Heidi about a different topic.

    Heidi

    You made a claim (even with your further explanations) the evidence does not support.

    It is both civil and fair for me to comment when I if I see you making the same claim again, holding others to a different standard you hold yourself to, or see you referring to/repeating a false accusation about me.

    There are times I may be abrasive (even when I don’t intend to be) but I have generally tried to be polite and there are times when you (though not being as bad as Bobby) were insulting and do not seem to be honest about/with me now. On balance you probably owe me an apology.

    pplr | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  499. @ann

    Your tendency to use words you have no idea about the definition of just makes your comments completely inane. I say this in all seriousness, quit while you’re behind. You can only make things worse. Propaganda. Look it up. It doesn’t apply to comments made about atheism here. Really. That’s just one example.

    bobby | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  500. blufinder– you all are rushing to be offended. I didn’t say all poor people, I said some. I was a rather sophisticated poor person growing up.

    But you kind of make my point, you are sophisticated enough to reach out to these orgs. when you need help w/ these problems. Many people don’t know what will help, where to go. So… here’s an example of what I’m talking about, missionaries find a woman and her daughter. Woman is living w/ 2nd or 3rd bf, not daughters’ father. She joins church, bf joins. 6yr old daughter now has lots of adults asking her every week how she’s doing following up if she looks sad. Mother got financial assistance to go to a trade school to improve financial situation. Bf, now husband, and mother get responsibilities @ church with lessons regularly about proper treatment of family and chances to interact w/ older successful parents. This family has moved, with a better job opptnty, I keep in touch on facebook. Doing well, apprec. church sppt in their new area. This little girl’s situation would have made her much more vulnerable to abuse, and to depression from early sex, drugs, etc. But her future is more bright now, I believe, and if she does have problems people will be there to encourage and help. Maybe she will be an adult like me in a few years saying how glad she is that she had the church to help her grow up.

    I’m sorry you reached out to some one that ignored you, I don’t get that. I’ve never experienced that in my own faith. Whenever people are struggling there are all kinds of visits and counseling available. In fact, I would be willing to bet you $100 I could get you someone to talk to you close to your area within a couple of weeks, if you contacted me at goesquicklyenjoy a t yahoo d o t com. Everyone is a volunteer in our religion, people don’t make money off it, but they are pretty good at responding to needs and really caring about helping people out.

    Ann | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  501. bobby– “Inane”, I’ll add that to my list of what I am. I may have to look that one up though. You, however, may need to look up propaganda. Presenting only very extreme and not typical examples of one group (believers) in order to imply that the whole group is bad and destructive would be classified as propaganda. If your argument doesn’t stand up when a more complete picture of believers is given, that is propaganda. And if you cannot accept reasonable evidence that some atheists have also been motivated by their beliefs to do horrible things, that’s your strong faith in the complete superiority of atheists, which will endure, Stalin be damned(actually I hope he is).

    Ann | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  502. No, I have no need to look the word up. I’m familiar with it in all it’s forms, the primary one being what you and the other idiot are doing here. Presenting views that you don’t like is only happening amongst a group of people in one location. That does not qualify as propaganda. We have to be going to places where our views aren’t wanted and presenting them there to qualify. Which is what you and the other idiot are doing here! Imagine that!

    The proper term for what you’re doing in your latest post, btw, is projection. Try looking that one up.

    Our views stand up fine. All we’re saying is there is no evidence for the existence of a god. You, no doubt, are reading much more into it, but that’s your problem, not ours. When you can prove your imaginary buddy Jesus and his father existed then we’ll take you seriously, until then you’re just another deluded fool.

    bobby | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  503. And please stop telling us that Stalin killed in the name of atheism. I know you’ve been brainwashed into believing it’s true, but the facts prove otherwise. Your refusal to engage in logical thought doesn’t make your idiotic statement true.

    bobby | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  504. One more thing, no one, and mean no one here has stated that atheists are superior. You seem incapable of separating what you project onto us from the facts. It’s sad really, but quite typical of every Christian I’ve had the misfortune to have known.

    bobby | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  505. bobby– The title of this thread is, “Still More Things Atheists Didn’t Do” and lists atrocious acts committed by believers. You call every Christian you talk to on this blog degrading names, call me stupid, etc. and say I’m typical of every Christian that you’ve met.

    Here’s a reading comprehension test for you based on the above passage:

    Based on your reading do you think bobby and Dave Hitt think:

    a)Christians and atheists are groups that have individual people in them that are sometimes helpful and sometimes destructive.

    b)Christians and atheists have opinions and we shouldn’t judge them.

    c)We like to appreciate the good in people regardless of their beliefs.

    d)Atheists are superior to theists.

    I always did quite well on reading comprehension tests in school… How about you, bobby?

    Ann | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  506. Oh, and, bobby– propaganda 1)information, rumors, etc. deliberately spread to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution (Webster’s unabridged)

    Since the jury’s still out on your reading comprehension skills, I’ll fill in the blanks. Propaganda–Information (the stories at the beginning of this thread), rumors, etc. deliberately spread to help or harm (harm would be the correct choice here) a person, group (that would be all believers lumped together), movement, institution

    I hope that helped. xoxoxo

    Ann | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  507. I’m confused by the assertion that Stalin was evil in the name of atheism, I had been told that it was in the name of mustaches.

    Nate Lockwood | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  508. You’re such a card, Nate.

    Ann | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  509. @ann

    Well, since you ask, the last psat test I took, I scored in the top 1% for reading comprehension. I also have an I.Q. in the top 2% overall. Not that it matters. One can be intelligent and not be smart.

    As to the title of the thread, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussions we were having amongst ourselves before the place was infected with Christians. Again you display your inability to argue coherently. And you wonder why I call you an idiot!

    I’m much to fast to take your inane little test, it has nothing to do with reality, and I don’t presume to speak for Dave.

    As to your definition of propaganda, yes, that’s one definition, but as I’ve already pointed out, we are here talking amongst ourselves, not going to Christian groups and trying to persuade them to think like us, unlike you and your ilk. Again, you’re projecting. Interesting to note that you chose to ignore that and other things I’ve pointed out that are true. I guess they’re inconvienient.

    The reason you’re here is because you have that little nagging doubt at the back of your mind. That’s because your beliefs have no evidence to support them. That’s the reason we don’t go looking for idiots to bother, we’re secure in our knowledge that belief in fairy tales is stupid.

    bobby | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  510. @Nate

    Yes, but only manly communist moustaches, atheist or otherwise.

    bobby | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  511. More stupid theist tricks:

    Two dead and ten injured at a gay youth center in Tel Aviv, Israel. Now it’s a dead certainty that the shooter was either a Jew or a Muslim, since that covers 100% of the population there. So this idiot was doing what his god wanted him to do. The irony here is that no one there will make the connection between their fairy tale beliefs and what was done. It will just be a “hate” crime. Yes, indeed, that’s what it is. They hate everyone who breaks their rules.

    bobby | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  512. And of course, that’s one more crime that wasn’t committed in the name of atheism. Imagine that.

    bobby | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  513. This is hysterical! More cheesy Christian propaganda on You Tube. Watch as the hapless Christian youth, unable to think for himself, enlists the aid of a bible study group of light sabre wielding morons to defend him from evil temptation!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENLvja3t5F4

    bobby | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  514. Told you she was going to say whatever we came up with wasn’t good enough. I suspect DARE isn’t good enough, either, even though the police go into the schools with it.

    More Godly Violence

    @Bobby: They never do explain why, if they aren’t pushing their religion at us, they are spouting godspeak to atheists. I don’t have the slightest clue what people are saying on religious sites unless somebody tells me. And I don’t care. I’m certainly not about to head over to one and start lecturing. If they want to hold hands and sing kum-ba-yah out of my face, I don’t care. Rock on pod people.

    I notice, btw, that Toad typed my name. I hope he’s not suffering under the delusion that I’m going to read any more of his posts. Also, I am saying negative things about religion at other sites as well, so I hope that burns his butt.

    Heidi | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  515. That was a horrible crime and no Christian I know would defend it, including me. Here, “all you guys in the middle east should turn the other cheek, forgive and not kill people that offend you.” That’s what Christ’s words taught me.

    Now, it’s your turn, bobby. Stalin, an atheist who disbelief in God informed his opinion that his power and his country’s well-being were more important than the lives of his religious citizens killed most of the members of the Russian orthodox church. For much of his anti-religious campaign he used “The League of Militant Atheists” to do his dirty work. He praised a ‘militant atheist”s journal, saying that the man was “carry[ing] on untiring atheist propaganda and an untiring atheist fight”. See also — http://knol.google.com/k/lev-regelson/russian-church-and-stalin/1i7aar4mqflvt/19#

    and “Militant atheism” here — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism#cite_ref-3

    and the library of congress pulling from Russian archives that there was a war against believers, here– http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/anti.html

    So bobby, show me that you are not motivated by blind atheist bias, and condemn Stalin for his atheism based killings and starvations, etc.

    Ann | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  516. Oh, he’s not going to give up on you easily, you’re the only one that took him at all seriously, you’re his lifeline here. All you can do is ignore him. Yes, of course she was going to find it not good enough, she’s brainwashed, Heidi. They all are. They’re scared to death of that nagging doubt they have in spite of the brainwashing and they have to come to places like this to do battle in order to assuage the guilt. It’s incredibly sad.

    bobby | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  517. ok bobby– I’ll add brainwashed to my list of things you say I am. Does that mean you don’t have to read any of my links to see that one of your fellow atheists used his non-beliefs to motivate horrible acts that you would only like to ascribe to believers?

    That would kind of rain on your “atheists are superior” parade. Sorry, I wouldn’t interfere with your devotional service except I think that propaganda against any group is a bad thing. Who knows if there is a little Adolf or “Soso” (as his mother liked to call him) reading on the WWW who will absorb your anti-theism and when finding himself with political power act on those prejudices.

    It’s all fun and games, until someone grows a mustache.

    Ann | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  518. More Christian psycho-babble. “atheists are superior”. Please, do show me where anyone here has made that claim. And no, your demented interpretation of what’s been said isn’t going to cut it. Show me where that statement has been made.

    “devotional service”. Another projection. And still you refuse to address that issue. What a surprise!

    Propaganda is indeed bad. So why are Christians so enamoured of it? See the video link I posted for one small example. And note how retarded it is. Christians always pander to the lowest common denominator, that way they can sure they’re getting their message across, since so many of them are under educated and have double digit I.Q.s

    Ah, so you fear that the next despot is going to be infected by our assertions that there is no evidence of any god! My yes, that would be tragic, wouldn’t it? Well, no, actually it wouldn’t. You see they don’t do the things they do because they don’t believe in a god, most all of them actually do believe, they just don’t let that get in their way. Are you concerned about all the Christian despots doing damage to the world? Like, the pope for instance? No, I think not.

    bobby | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  519. Do tell me how not believing in fairy tales is a prejudice. See? Once again you’re using inappropriate words for what you’re trying to convey. You really should invest in a dictionary. You continue to embarrass yourself. Logically concluding that there is no evidence of god does not constitute prejudice anywhere but in your tiny little mind, to the rest of us you just look like the idiot that you are for not using proper terms.

    bobby | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  520. Are atheists superior to Xtians?
    Let us use a simple measure: How many of us are in prison? Few. How many of them? Enough to make
    a invasion force! The question is answered,I
    believe. Why? I decline to Speculate.

    proud kuffar | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  521. bobby– Did you read any of my links about Stalin’s atheist motivations for killing religious people in his country? If you did then you should be ready to admit that even atheist beliefs can be used by bad people to justify atrocities.

    I have been willing to admit that nominal Christians have used twisted Christian faith to justify atrocities.

    If you cannot admit that then all the readers have proof of your blind faith in superiority of atheist beliefs in the face of solid evidence to the contrary.

    Ann | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  522. Well good on ya, proud kuffar! Your speculation would simply infect the mind of some impressionable future despot who would then slaughter millions when he grows up because he stumbled across us evil bastards daring to state the truth about fairy tales!

    You can sleep easy tonight knowing that you didn’t contribute to his evil. Well done. After all, Ann, noble person that she is, just wants to keep the impressionable from seeing the truth before her ilk can brainwash them with bullshit.

    bobby | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  523. proud kuffar– Thank you for finally saying the words. Even with all his self-admitted reading comprehension skills, he cannot realize what the repeated message of this thread has been. bobby, the words have been said, duh, duh, duh…. so now you will admit it, I assume.

    Ann | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  524. Bobby do you play Runescape?!

    Enriched White Flour | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  525. @Ann

    My god you’re dense. (did you see that, I said my god. I make ze leetle joke.) I’m going to say this one more time, in two syllable words so that you can hopefully comprehend it:

    I, nor others have said that atheists or atheist views are superior. What you are doing is, and I’m sorry, but I have to use a three syllable word here, just move your lips while you read it and maybe it will sink in, is called projection. Break it down. Pro-jec-tion. It means you’re taking what you think and believe and pretending it’s what others are doing. It’s a common tactic of the none too aware, a group of which YOU are a card carrying member.

    Nominal Christians? Is that some denomination or something? How do you manage to use the wrong terms so very often? I’m pretty sure most people with Down’s Syndrome could do better than that. Amazing.

    Bad people using atheist beliefs to justify atrocities. So you’re saying there’s people out there committing rape, murder and mayhem and then saying, “Yeah, I did it because I don’t believe in god”?

    The extent of your brainwashing goes way beyond what I usually encounter. You’re a real gem, you are.

    bobby | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  526. My comprehension skills are just fine. Again you confuse your interpretations with actual words. You “perceive” the message of this thread to be what you want it to be, but Ann, try to comprehend this, it’s all relative! No, really! Others will read it and see something entirely different to what you see. Wow, did that blow your mind? You better have a lie down now, I’m sure that’s all a bit much for you.

    bobby | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  527. If proud kuffar wants to indicate that he things atheists are superior to theists, that’s his right. It’s the first time it’s been said, your idiotic assertions to the contrary.

    It’s certainly true that every Christian I’ve encountered has made it clear they believe the contrary, so what’s the big deal?

    And no, dimwit, no one has evidence of my belief in the “superiority” of atheists, because I’ve never said any such thing. It’s that projection thingy you’re so enamoured of. You would do well to seek therapy in that regard. Truly.

    Note also that you used the word faith. Yet more projection. I have no faith, you idiot. That’s the whole point. You fail completely to understand what’s going on. You’re WAY out of your depth.

    bobby | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  528. bobby– you are so smart that I didn’t think I would have to explain that to you, but here goes, I’m glad to help. Nominal means being named something; so a nominal Christian is someone who carries the name of a Christian, so like Torquemada, or the people who carried on the Crusades. I distinguish them from actual Christians because Christians are people whose beliefs are “of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings”. So since Jesus Christ taught love one another, turn the other cheek, go the second mile, kindness, forgiveness, none of those people fit the definition of actual Christians, yet people call them Christians. So, ta-da– nominal Christians. Was that clear? Would a picture help?

    Ann | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  529. Oh my. Sarcasm goes over your head too. I should have known. I’ll keep it down to what you’re capable of getting if I can.

    As to what Jesus taught, Jesus never taught anything since he never existed. Go on, prove me wrong. I’m waiting. While I do occasionally encounter Christians who try to live by the teachings he supposedly put out there, those people are vastly outnumbered by the hypocrites who use the name, yourself included.

    bobby | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  530. As far as proof– I would start with a book titled “Darwin’s Black Box” (I think) that’s the closest that I can get to proof any of you could possibly accept. But you are trying to get this thread onto a different topic which would be very lengthy.

    So to kind of focus on the topic at hand–

    1) The majority of Christians do not commit the atrocities that are proudly displayed at the beginning of this thread. (Decades in the pew at my church have brought me lots of teachings about honesty, kindness, responsibility, no conversations about killing or hurting people we disagree with. Maybe they’ll slip that in next week.)

    2) There are bad people motivated by atheist beliefs as well as theist beliefs. (Scroll back to my links about Stalin.)

    3) Trying to influence people to believe that a group of people (that would be Christians) is bad, deranged, or less deserving than other groups based on a very selective look at some crazies is not a very responsible thing.

    bobby– Any extra illustration needed?

    Ann | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  531. bobby– OK, hypocrite’s on the list. I do know what that means. What do I do that’s hypocritical?

    Ann | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  532. Do you honestly mean to tell me that you think your imaginary buddy would be here doing what you’re doing? No, not according to my reading of the New Testament. You call yourself a Christian, but you’re not doing what Christ would do. Get it?

    There is no proof of the existence of Jesus, full stop. I’ve investigated this matter for many years, if there were any I would have seen it by now. We discussed this earlier, I believe. I can direct you to several sites that have dismantled all the Christian horse shit that passes for evidence to the contrary. Most biblical scholars that are willing to be impartial concede that solid evidence doesn’t exist, contrary to what they tell you in Sunday school.

    Let’s start with the FACT that Bethlehem didn’t exist until more than a hundred years after your imaginary buddy was supposed to have been born. Add to that the fact that no Joseph or Mary was recorded in the meticulous tax records that the Romans kept and you have a pretty strong case that it’s all a fairy tale. There are a multitude of other facts that get in the way of the story. Really.

    Where did anyone say that majority of Christians commit atrocities? You really need a course in rational thinking.

    bobby | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  533. “Trying to influence people to believe that a group of people (that would be Christians) is bad, deranged, or less deserving than other groups based on a very selective look at some crazies is not a very responsible thing.

    bobby– Any extra illustration needed?”

    Absolutely. Where do you see any of that happening? Because I sure don’t. More of your selective interpretation of the facts. You’re pathetic. Add that one to your list.

    bobby | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  534. Sorry to rabbit on here, but this needs to be addressed, I almost forgot about it. Darwin’s Black Box. My god (I just love that!). Irreducible complexity as proof of the existence of intelligent design. This is the biggest leap of logic ever foisted on the public. It’s ultimate proof that Christians cant’ think.

    Just because we don’t yet know how something came about is not proof of any god. Really. I mean, we used to believe the earth was flat, didn’t we? We’re in a constant state of discovery. Saying that because we haven’t come up with an answer there isn’t one is not exactly brilliant. Well, it passed for such amongst the superstitious, but really, no.

    I can’t even believe Ann bothered with that one. She’s stupider than I thought. They should make another sequel to Dumb and Dumber and cast her in it. The could call it Dumb, Dumber and Dumbest!

    Ann, are even remotely aware that several of the examples he gave of irreducible complexity have since been solved? There goes his entire thesis down the tubes. Uh oh!

    bobby | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  535. a l r i g h t b o b b y– let’s try to get you up to speed, here. The entire premise of this thread was that atheist’s don’t do the horrible, inhumane things that theists do. I don’t agree with that premise and so got drawn into a defense of my beliefs, similar to your defense of your beliefs (prove to me that God doesn’t exist). While here I saw some rational people mentioning that it was probably people with mental illness doing these horrible things, but mostly it was a sea of back-patting about aren’t we glad that we’re atheists that are smarter and more worthy of admiration than those theists. That’s prejudice to judge anyone before you know them based on propaganda you have heard about their group.

    I can’t defend Muslims or the pope or whoever you throw at me as evidence of horribleness, because that’s not something I know enough about. I just know that my Christian friends and I help people and aren’t prone to violence.

    And to your very perceptive WWJD question, maybe He would be here, not really sure. I do know that Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher and others get enough air time with their anti-theist beliefs that I do worry that at some point it could be used against me and my children. It already gets us disparaging comments at school and in the popular media. Christian prejudice is one of the few that is still politically correct.

    Ann | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  536. Cast in the Dumb, Dumber, Dumbest movie, now that’s the final straw. I cannot compete with your rhetorical brilliance. I will go somewhere and cry about all the things you say I am.

    But I will be back, as soon as I’m done crying, you devastating man.

    Ann | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  537. Get ME up to speed? Thanks for the chuckle.

    Your summation of the premise of this thread, wow, I’ve searched high and low and I can’t find any evidence to support even one word of that! You must have amazing powers of observation!

    My defence of my beliefs. Um, what beliefs are those? I already told you I don’t have any. I have a considered opinion that there is no god, based on the FACT that there is no evidence for one.

    Also, where have any of us said we’re, how did you put it? “smarter and more worth of admiration” than theists. I will concede that we probably do think we’re smarter on the whole, after all we don’t believe in fairy tales, so that goes a long way towards thinking that much, but worth of admiration?

    Can you honestly not see that that’s something you’ve made up in your wee little mind? I mean, really!

    You worry that atheist beliefs are going to harm you and your children? Oh my. You really ARE delusional! To the contrary, it’s your poison that the rest of us have to guard against! We suffer continual harassment and prejudice for daring to speak the truth. You’re so brainwashed you really can’t see that.

    Disparaging comments at school for being a Christian?! BULLSHIT! I’m not even going there.

    Christian prejudice. You got that right, just not in the way you intended it. Christians as a whole are extremely prejudice.

    You’re way out in la-la land with this latest vomit.

    bobby | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  538. @Bobby: Oh my FSM. Is she spouting Unintelligent Design speak now? Yeah, that’s not OT. ID = “I am not bright enough to understand how the world works, so it must be magic.” Except podlings can’t say “a wizard did it,” because if their god was a wizard they’d have to kill him. Funny stuff. They say woo. I say physics.

    And anyway, wasn’t she supposed to be proving Jesus existed? WTF does that have to do w/ ID? Even if I fall for the ID shtick, it doesn’t prove the “Intelligence” is their evil sky god let alone the existence of his magic baby/avatar/self/son/human sacrifice.

    I spent hundreds of posts being polite(ish) and rational. It didn’t work. So now I’m moving on to pointing and laughing. And it’s pretty funny that podlings assume we don’t have any religious friends or relatives. I have some very good friends who are religiously deluded, including a retired Methodist minister. (FSM bless them.) I don’t have any friends who believe in ID or young earths, though. I have no use for willful ignorance.

    Heidi | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  539. Oh c’mon! I’m just getting warmed up! Besides, don’t you get Jesus Points for every insult? You know, you get a certain number of points and they give you your very own cross and three spikes so you can hang up there and be a martyr! You know it’s true!

    bobby | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  540. But I will be back to shove my unwanted opinions down everyone’s throats until they stop making fun of my imaginary god. Because everyone is entitled to his/her opinion as long as it agrees with mine. If it doesn’t I will hunt them down and yap at them.

    Heidi | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  541. Now, now, Heidi, lets not frighten the ‘orses. I’m rather enjoying this one. She’s just as stupid as Purple People Eater, but she’s a bit more articulate, even if she can’t mount a rational argument.

    Besides, you know she’ll be back, she’s racking up Jesus Points! I guess the other fool finally got enough for his cross, and that’s why we’re not seeing him, it’s hard to type when you’re hanging there, you know?

    bobby | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  542. And since she showed up about 500 comments into the discussion, she can pretend all of the crap she’s saying hasn’t already been dealt with. I think she’s worse than pplr, though. At least he wasn’t going around spouting homophobia and ID. He may be deluded and naive (and rude), but she’s making him seem sane. Maybe that was his plan. lol. I’ll send someone even worse than I am!

    I wonder what happened to the guy who writes and then references his own articles? That was pretty funny, too.

    Heidi | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  543. Oh, he just wanted to direct some traffic to his blog. He probably gets about 5 hits a month. Most Christians aren’t stupid enough to claim the bible doesn’t say what it says. He’s a special case.

    bobby | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  544. Heidi,

    Should I take that as a backhanded compliment?

    I’ll buy that I’m naive a bit but “rude” probably shouldn’t be coming from you. I know you definitely haven’t been the worst out of all of us but you shouldn’t throw stones.

    You say you’ll take physics over “woo”. Someone already posted how string theory is unproven and people exploring it are respected rather than derided.

    I haven’t read all of Ann’s comments yet. On one hand she did start out by pointing out some interesting comments of Hitler’s no one else brought up (a positive). But if she is against gay folks that means I’ll have to talk with her and will see how well it goes (both a negative and an one that makes my arguments harder-but that is the real world).

    pplr | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  545. Wow, you really are dense. She’s said several times she’s through with you. No wonder you’re a Christian, you can’t even understand simple statements. You’d believe anything!

    bobby | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  546. Heidi, have you ever clicked on the ads on this page? there’s one for something called the atheist’s riddle. It takes you to a site by some guy who claims he has ironclad proof of intelligent design. That’s just one of his claims. He’s published a book online, presumably because he can’t find a publisher that will touch it, and he makes lots of claims such as 120 engineers who’ve seen his work and are firm believers. It’s hysterical!

    bobby | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  547. @Ann: It’s blufindr. As in, second letter of the alphabet, 12th letter of the alphabet, et al. I realise your name is substantially shorter than mine, and that mine is rather unusual, but please. Correct spelling is a courtesy. I have extended it to you, it would be nice if you could do the same to me.

    It’s not sophistication that leads to the poor seeking help. It’s something called information, which is unfortunately woefully lacking. And on top of that, being in a situation where your abuser will do nothing but abuse you further for “being trouble” and “getting other people involved” [sic] isn’t exactly conducive to you wishing to seek help. I’ve known rape victims, mugging victims, women and children and men who are repeatedly beaten and lambasted by their partners, who will not seek help for fear of making their already-horrible situation worse.

    These organisations do reach out. They try to lead people to seek help. Unfortunately, they don’t reach everyone, so yes, some people do get lost in the system. None of this means that the poor people you were referring to were necessarily unsophisticated. You and I are living proof of that.

    One of the women my aforementioned friend helped, did not join a church. She did not join, in any way, any organisation except that of the group helping her, at that moment in time. She left her abusive husband of 12 years, took their three young children, sought shelter, put her life back together, and left. None of this required any obligation, beyond the occasional phone call to let the rest of us know how she was going. Now, joining a church is (in my opinion) much more restrictive than this. Besides the weekly (or more) mandatory meetings, there is a great deal of personal change required. The (also aforementioned) blind faith in something of which there exists no irrefutable evidence, is one of these changes. Had this woman (who had been an atheist for an absurdly long time) approached a church about her situation, she (like I) would have been turned away, for nothing more than her lack in faith. Tell me, how is that in any way fair or helpful?

    Oh, and for the record: I still occasionally keep in touch with her. Her kids are in a fantastic school (I believe the eldest is 14 now), have big ambition and a great deal of talent to reach it, and she herself is in a very good place as well. I don’t see how this would have been possible for her, if she’d reached out to a church and refused to join it.

    Close to my area? You know people who live in Australia?

    My people are volunteers, too. We make no profit, regularly working much more than the standard 9-5, ask for no donations, expect nothing in return. We, too, are good at responding to crises. So we’re doing as well as, if not better than (and I think, since we possess no caveat of blind faith, that we’re already doing better than) you and yours. Doesn’t mean I think we’re superior. Just means I think we don’t demand anything of the people we help, beyond “Get your life back together”.

    Make me a list of “Still More Things Theists Didn’t Do”. I dare you. Retaliate in kind, tell me all the horrible things my kind have done. ::shrugs:: I don’t recall one single instance, ever, where people were killed or hurt in the name of atheism. I don’t know of a single instance where someone said, “Hey, let’s kill off a shit-ton of theists, because they’re not as superior as we are [insert evil laugh here]“. Know why? Because it never happened. Yeah, we fuck up too, and I’ll be the first to admit that. A great number of atheists I know, I’m ashamed to affiliate with, because they’re quite frankly that retarded. But we don’t bomb churches, kill church leaders (um, dismiss the events of Angels and Demons, that was a work of fiction…) or any comparative action, that would match up to what theists (more specifically, Christians) have done.

    Re: Stalin. He was an atheist. He was also an asshole. The two are not necessarily synonymous, despite what you might think. Simply because he condoned atheist views, does not mean that he killed people in the name of atheism. Get it right. Stalin didn’t go out, kill people, and be all like “yeah, I killed them because they believe in a fairy being”. That wasn’t how it worked. You can’t make the Stalin argument work any more. Just drop it.

    I’m fairly sure that the majority of posters here (myself, bobby, and Heidi included) would agree that not every theist is bad. However, how does one simply dismiss out of hand, the “crazies” that do take the religion to extremes? We cannot ignore the outliers simply because they do not fit into the theory that “God is love, lalalalala”. There are no comparative people in atheism. Point one out. Point one out that was, irrefutably, atheist, and killed people in the name of atheism. And then I will concede to your point. Until then, you cannot possibly convince me that we’re irresponsible, or any other spin you wish to place upon it. I’m aware you don’t agree with that premise. But you’re dismissing all other facts out of hand. We don’t do what you do. Period.

    I don’t have enough battery life left to finish this, so I’ll try to get back and address all other points later. But um, wow. Playing the crying card? That’s really, really low. What did you think that would achieve? You chose to play here, little girl. Deal with the consequences.

    blufindr | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  548. She believes that Stalin killed in the name of atheism because he had a lot of orthodox Christians killed. What she’s choosing to ignore, well, I think she’s choosing to ignore it, it could just be that’s too stupid to make the distinction, is that he didn’t kill them simply because they were Christians, he killed them because they were peasants and he needed to get control of the peasantry first. By killing a lot of them he accomplished his goal. He separated them from their religion as a means of demoralizing them. It wasn’t in the name of atheism, it was just part of the overall plan to seize control. Christians refuse to accept this because they then lose the argument about atheists killing in the name of atheism when they can’t deny that Christians kill in the name of Christianity. Devious bastards that they are.

    bobby | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  549. @bobby: Are you keeping score? I want to know how close I am to the Hall of Shame. I’m too selfish to be a martyr. Besides which, as a bisexual atheist who had the milk for free before she bought the cow, I’m fairly sure I’m already too “immoral” to go to heaven. Right?

    Re: Stalin. Or she’s ignoring it because she’s like my father, or ad execs. You know. The more you say it, the more people will believe you. That kind of thing.

    @pplr: String theory is unproven. That’s why it’s called a “theory”. Scientists don’t spout things as fact until there is near-apodictic. Big difference between this and religion, no?

    blufindr | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  550. Oh, I think you have a ways to go before you reach the Hall of Shame. You’re not offering up any Jesus Points, which is what they’re really here for.

    You may be right about why she keeps saying Stalin killed in the name of atheism. Purple People Eater keeps hammering on that too. Hmm…

    btw, you can explain the difference between theory and fact all you want, he won’t get it. You’d have better luck trying that on a chimpanzee. They’re lots smarter.

    bobby | Aug 2, 2009 | Reply

  551. @Bobby: I haven’t clicked on any of the woo ads. I have this weird fear that I’ll end up with a ton of Holy Spam if I do (and not in a Monty Python way). Or a Holy Virus. lol. By engineers, does he mean guys who drive trains?

    @blufindr: My sister and niece used to work for AIDS Action in Boston which was secular. After that, my sister moved on to harm reduction (also secular), which included putting herself in danger of arrest to get clean needles to drug addicts. Needle exchange is illegal in some places here. She also went to addicts homes alone not knowing what she’d find. At least once she had a weapon pulled on her and had to talk the client down.

    During that time she also worked with a returnee program for Cambodians who had committed a felony, done their time, and were being shipped back. That’s how she came to be living in Cambodia. She decided she could do more for them working with the (secular) Returnee Assistance Program over there. Many of the Cambodians we ship “back” were children when their parents fled, or were born in the refugee camps, so they are essentially non-citizen Americans. Some don’t even speak the language.

    She now runs a (secular) Harm Reduction group in Phnom Penh, where she employs many returnees. People she knows (probably best not to say who they were or whether or not she joined them) have had to sneak through the jungle with photographers to document and attempt to rescue the government’s drug-user/sex-worker/homeless round-ups. I’ve received plenty of photos of people in cages. Adults, children, elderly people… The photos are pretty damned depressing.

    But none of those are religious organizations, so they probably don’t count, either. It’s not really outreach unless you throw holy water on them or get all Chronicles of Riddick with the forced conversions.

    I’ve got What’s his face on virtual ignore. He’s talking about string theory again? Didn’t he already spew his whole scientific theories spiel like two or three hundred posts ago? *scrolls up* Oh, wait. That was “Joe.” Who is clearly a different person reading the same script. Ahem. Except Joe says he knows all about quantum physics. But he apparently doesn’t *understand* what he knows, or he wouldn’t be a podling. Hawking knows there is no woo. Einstein knew there is no woo. Scientific woo accommodationists have to lie to themselves so they don’t notice woo doesn’t fit the facts.

    Heidi | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  552. @Bobby: You’d have better luck trying that on a chimpanzee. They’re lots smarter.

    And I’m happy to be in the same taxonomic family with them, which is also different.

    Heidi | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  553. HTML Fail. oops.

    Heidi | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  554. @Heidi

    No, I’m pretty sure train engineers wouldn’t have given him the time of day. What I love about all that is that he claims to have solid proof of intelligent design and yet he can’t get it published independently. You think maybe that’s because the publishers who’ve gone near it saw it for the twaddle it is?

    bobby | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  555. Maybe if he marketed it as comedy?

    Heidi | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  556. @Heidi: It’s okay. ;) My eyes were growing weary of the format-free lengthy posts.

    It’s not really outreach, apparently, unless you tie them (metaphorically, or literally) to a regime which they may not completely agree with. ::shrugs::

    blufindr | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  557. @blufindr: So tell me honestly. How many times has Mr. King’s “rolling donut” quote popped into your head while reading the pod people comments? :-P

    Heidi | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  558. @Heidi: Sometimes, sometimes. :P

    blufindr | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  559. Ok, here goes guys, this time you need to actually read if you want to disagree with this argument.

    Stalin carried out his war on religion complete with parades where he lined up believers and ridiculed as they walked through the streets before they were killed (bobby- you know you think that would be fun) with an organization called– are you ready?– “The League of Militant Atheists” or “League of Godless”.

    Here are my links again since no one read them–

    Stalin, praised a ‘militant atheist’’s journal, saying that the man was “carry[ing] on untiring atheist propaganda and an untiring atheist fight”. See also — http://knol.google.com/k/lev-regelson/russian-church-and-stalin/1i7aar4mqflvt/19#

    and “Militant atheism” here — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism#cite_ref-3

    and the library of congress pulling from Russian archives that there was a war against believers, here– http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/anti.html

    So I’m bracing myself to be ignored once again, but you just show your blind devotion once again.

    Ann | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  560. blufindr– You’re a 17yrs old, so I’ll tell you the secret. The crying thing, it was a joke. You know, kind of throw bobby’s obsession with me being stupid back at him. Try it sometime, nothing worse than a humorless atheist.

    Ann | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  561. blufindr

    Actually to be a “theory” in the realm of science is to have a good degree of respect/testing. Point being that at least some of the scientists that research it believe it is true without having the proof that it is in hand. And few here refer to them as “deluded”.

    I referred you to a comment I made July 30th where people were killed and tortured in the name of atheism. Torture in specific was used as one more method to encourage people to be atheists. Please read through the comment.

    Ann

    What do you think of both gay marriage and civil unions? Do you think the government should be barred from recognizing them?

    pplr | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  562. Sometimes I wish I lived in the UK. When I read articles like this, for example.

    Heidi | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  563. pplr– not really the forum, it will just be fodder.

    But civil unions w/ all the trappings are fine, it’s just if you start changing marriage, next it will be the triads they are already talking about, two men and a dog, etc. If you read the gay activist literature, they are very ambivalent about the actual marriage part, but sticking it to the straight community is pretty awesome.

    Ann | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  564. blufindr- sorry about my last post, that was rude. I’m sorry for the stuff you are going through. I have daughters around your age and it would break my heart if they were going through what you seem to be. So, best wishes, I hope you can find some peace.

    Ann | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  565. Is she still here? She’s making me want to go to every christian forum and blog I can find and insult them all repeatedly as payback.

    Heidi | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  566. Payback? For what? Because I expressed my opinions in the middle of your little atheist love-fest?

    Ann | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  567. Try it sometime, nothing worse than a humorless atheist.

    How about someone blinded by fairy tales and unable to make a reasoned argument?

    bobby | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  568. @Ann

    So that’s the crux of the matter. Or love-fest, as you call it. Christians can’t stand free speech. They loathe it. They fear it. They want it stopped. I’ve yet to meet a Christian who does anything more than pay lip service to freedom of speech. Despicable.

    As for your continued crap about Stalin, the very article you posted states quite clearly that killing orthodox Christians was done as a means to control the peasantry. In other words, atheism was a MEANS TO AN END. Can you get that through your thick skull? If someone uses a concept to achieve a goal not related to the goal they are not doing what they’re doing in the name of the concept.

    It’s really very simple, but you’ve been brainwashed into believing otherwise and you doggedly persist in believing the lies you’ve been fed. You’re pathetic.

    bobby | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  569. We show our blind devotion.

    Wow. Now you add hypocrisy to your unending line of crap. You’re not blindly devoted to your fairy tale? Oh no, of course not. You’re not brainwashed. No.

    Listen, idiot, one more time, WE don’t have a belief system. We look at the evidence for a god and we see there isn’t any. YOU have a belief system, one based on lies and deception.
    You are amazingly stupid.

    bobby | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  570. And homophobia too! Wow. Hey Purple People Eater, we have another bigot here! But you’re not going to call her that, are you? No, because she’s your kind of bigot!

    bobby | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  571. Oh, and as for expressing your opinions, you don’t have any opinions of your own, dimwit, you’re simply regurgitating the crap you’ve been force fed. There’s a huge difference, not that you’re capable of recognizing it.

    You’ve stumbled into a group of people engaging in rational thought and it’s disoriented you.

    bobby | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  572. btw, twit, you’re the last person in the world who should be condescending to anyone. Being sarcastic to blufindr because of her age shows your true nature. You’re pathetic.

    bobby | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  573. Actually to be a “theory” in the realm of science is to have a good degree of respect/testing. Point being that at least some of the scientists that research it believe it is true without having the proof that it is in hand. And few here refer to them as “deluded”.

    And can you honestly not see why that is? I’ll spell it out for you. It’s because they’re working with f-a-c-t-s. They take quantifiable things and draw conclusions, then test those conclusions to see if they hold up.

    Are you really trying to say the same is true for religion? Okay, then, what are your facts? Fact, there is a god? Where is he? Fact, Jesus actually existed? Where is the proof? This is why I say you’re an imbecile. You can’t distinguish between scientific enquiry and fairy tales. Unbelievable!

    bobby | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  574. LOL. She’s so easy. That was funny.

    Heidi | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  575. Notice how the longer they stay the more ludicrous their arguments get. They’re flailing around trying desperately to find something they can make stick.

    I have to think the whole Stalin thing must be something the church is force feeding them. They’ve been told it’s true, and to back it up they go find Christian sites that reinforce the propaganda and then offer that as evidence, only it backfired. The very evidence she offered clearly states the contrary. Amazing.

    Note also that neither of them has addressed my claim that they have a nagging little doubt in the back of their minds about their “faith”. That’s because it’s true. It has to be. There’s no evidence to support what they believe, so doubt is natural. What they’re doing is trying to deny the sense that nature gave them to work with. Believing in fairy tales requires one to stop thinking.

    The reason they’re here, ultimately, is to try to rid themselves of that doubt. They seek out atheists and argue with them in the vain hope that they can achieve certainty about their irrational beliefs.

    bobby | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  576. So bobby, if in America, George Bush, a confessed Christian, took over all three branches and named a group the “Godly Army” and unleashed it on unbelievers killing many. Then he encouraged his followers to be brave Christian warriors. You wouldn’t think that had anything to do with his beliefs?

    Ann | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  577. Oh, and, I do have doubts everyday. That’s why it’s called “faith”, not proof. But everyday I find, read and experience things that reinforce what I believe. It’s kind of the point. In the meantime I try to be the best at being a person that I can.

    The only reason I’m here is that your whipping up sentiment against a group is wrong. I’ll correct any falsehoods that I see being used to do that. And try to let others see that there is another side to the story, i.e. Christianity isn’t the stain or disease it’s constantly being described as.

    Ann | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  578. You know, I really don’t want to believe that you can’t see how flawed that analogy is, but if you can’t, well, then you’re even more stupid than I thought you were.

    Here goes: If butthead had taken over in the name of Christianity, and sent his “warriors” out to kill in the name of Christianity, then that’s what it would have been, murder in the name of Christianity. Now, what was the banner Stalin operated under? Atheism? NO! Communism.

    I’ll try just one more time to get this through your incredibly thick skull. Stalin used atheism as a tool to achieve his ends. The Chinese do the same. The goal is a perfect totalitarian state. Does atheism work as a tool to achieve that? Yes it does. Why? Because religion gives the masses hope. False hope, but hope nonetheless, and dictators understand that instinctively. To achieve a totalitarian state you must take away everything that the people can rally around to resist.

    The most glaring fact you’ve failed to recognize is that Stalin was a classic narcissist. Narcissists have no use for atheism as anything other than a tool, just as everything else is a tool to them that they use to achieve their ultimate goal, which is to satisfy their unquenchable desire to have everything be about them. Ultimately, narcissists can’t be atheists in the true sense of the word because they believe themselves to be – wait for it- GODS!

    So there goes your argument, dashed to bits. poor you.

    bobby | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  579. Christianity is most certainly a disease. It seeks to control people’s behaviour and stop rational thought. That’s a disease in my book.

    So you’ve appointed yourself saviour of the world, have you? I thought that was your imaginary buddy’s job. Did you clear this with him? Haven’t I given you enough Jesus points to get that cross you so desperately want to hang on?

    You read things that reinforce your “faith”? Sure you do. Written by like-minded imbeciles. Great. That’s called a closed circuit Ann. We had a term for that in the early days of computing, GIGO. It stands for Garbage In, Garbage Out. You demonstrate the principal every time you post here.

    bobby | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  580. That’s why it’s called faith and not proof.

    Do you realize what you said there? I’ll bet you don’t. You don’t have the intellectual capacity to grasp how you just proved the stupidity of your belief system. Thanks for that. Now everyone here can see clearly.

    bobby | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  581. Interesting that you bring up butthead’s salvation army, Ann. That was the evangelical wet dream. Still is, I’m sure. But now that your saviour Palin has fallen to pieces I guess you have to face the reality that it will never happen. boo hoo.

    bobby | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  582. Hey Ann, was Jesus a homophobe too, or is that just you being a hypocrite?

    bobby | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  583. He called his group “the League of Militant Atheists”. What is sooooo threatening to you about admitting that atheists have used their beliefs to do horrific things, too.

    Ann | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  584. The only people I’ve seen use force to silence others’ opinions lately are gay activists throwing blacks and Christians out of their neighborhoods and harassing people at work that showed up on the prop 8 support lists.

    Ann | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  585. I don’t even like Palin.

    You have some pretty hair-triggered meanness. How are those long-term personal relationships going?

    Ann | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  586. Can you really be this dense? I can’t believe it. Ann, try, really try to get this through your thick skull. It’s a TOOL. He used atheism as a TOOL. It was not the be all and end all of the master plan. He used many tools. Does it then follow that he killed in the name of all those tools. NO!

    I’m not the one who’s threatened, Ann, you are. You’re defending the indefensible and it’s causing you to become ever more irrational as you flail about trying cover your inadequacies. Pull your head out of your ass!

    bobby | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  587. How are my relationships going? You want to make this personal now? I wouldn’t go there if I were you. If I were to really pull out the stops you’d be devastated.

    For the record, I’ve been very happily married for 12 years. My wife adores me. My children love me. My friends think I’m great. Those things are all completely true. How’s it going for you? I’m guessing you’re a bitter, frustrated housewife stuck in a loveless marriage.

    bobby | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  588. Bobby, have you ever had any dealings with the *insert city name here* Church of Christ (as opposed to the plain version without the city name attached)? They were viral (don’t know if they’re still around – hope not). When I was in college, the Boston Church of Christ had podbots all over the campus. It got so bad that the school’s Catholic priest held a discussion about cults in the lobby of my dorm.

    It was like strangers with candy trying to get you into the car. Podbot kids would come up to you and start a conversation like “I like your shirt.” A couple of minutes into it they would suddenly say “so do you want to go to bible study?” A Catholic friend of mine actually went to one, and she came back pretty pissed off at whatever she heard there. Unfortunately another friend of mine got sucked in hard. They had her changing her major to one more suitable for missionary work, isolated her from her friends and family… the whole mindwipe cult thing. After a while all I ever heard from her was stuff about going to hell. And this was *before* I realized all religion was a lie.

    Fortunately she got out, and the church has more or less imploded. I think there was something about one of the leaders facing legal action, but I may be misremembering.

    The sad thing, though, is all these pod people legitimize the creepy cults, the Klan, the nutcases who shoot doctors in their own churches and so on. Because they insist religion is this untouchable wondrous thing, and scores of nuthatches use it to justify their actions. “I must be right, because god is on my side!” Yeah. Ok.

    People over at Operation rescue were spouting about how they just weren’t sorry at all about Dr. Tiller’s murder, essentially saying that he deserved it. And the whack job who shot him had been “whipping up sentiment” against him for years there. (I followed links and saw the posts before ol’ Randall could erase them. And no, I didn’t comment there. Those people make me sick and I have no interest in typing at them.)

    Speaking of whipping, I don’t think we’re doing a good enough job, if we’re supposed to be whipping up sentiment. We don’t even have a theme song. How about Onward Atheist Soldiers? Too derivative? We could have training camps like the Evangelicals had in the Jesus Camp documentary. Of course, training kids to think rationally won’t really work well toward the mob mentality. But hey, maybe farm implements would get them going.

    Heidi | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  589. The only people you’ve seen use force to silence others is gay people. Just keep that homophobia going, sweetheart, I’m sure Jesus is clapping with delight.

    bobby | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  590. Now Heidi, you know that can’t be true about the shootings because Ann says the only people doing such things are gay. Are you saying those pod people who commit violence are gay?!

    Hmmm…that would explain a lot…

    bobby | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  591. Gay activists throwing out black people? Black people who were telling them it’s wrong to be who they are, perhaps? Black people like Big Mama in whose neighborhood you can’t put anything she didn’t personally approve? Or are we talking about the normal kind?

    I’ll have to get some tips from them on getting rid of homophobic civil rights deniers, though. I’ve got gay net-friends in Cali. Maybe they can give me pointers. Not that we have many of those people around here. In my state, gay people just go right ahead and get married legally. The sky does not fall. Straight people don’t lose our minds and run about screaming and pulling out hair or turn suddenly gay. And if the subject ever comes up in the news, AP or the Globe calls That One Guy for a hate-side comment, and then we move along.

    Heidi | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  592. I would commit violence if I were a gay pod person. It must be an angry way to live.

    Heidi | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  593. Well since Ann wants to get really personal here, I’ll just go ahead and speculate that she’s actually a closet lesbian trying desperately to fit in to her tiny little world by getting married and having children and believing in fairy tales. Watch for the denial which will quickly follow!

    bobby | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  594. bobby, you pegged me. I am a lesbian. It’s all out in the open now. Thanks.

    Ann | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  595. I do get it. The reason that exactly the same facts don’t mean the same with the GB example vs. actual history with Stalin is that you are Ok w/ what Stalin did, Christians are inferior and deserve to be killed for getting in the way of progress. Thanks for making that clear.

    Heidi, you don’t have to check if I’m around anymore. I won’t challenge your prejudices and assumptions. You’re safe.

    Ann | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  596. Yeah? How’s that working out for you?

    bobby | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  597. I mean, does Jesus approve of lesbianism?

    bobby | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  598. I’m okay with what Stalin did? When did I say that? Oh, you mean, because I proved your bullshit about things being done in the name of atheism that must mean I approve of Stalin?

    Listen, twit, whether I approve of Stalin’s actions or not is completely irrelevant. It’s history. It’s done, it’s over, it can’t be changed. I know, such concepts are difficult for you, but that’s simply the facts. No, I don’t approve of what he did. I know, you have to make me out to be a monster because I don’t believe in the fairy tales you do, but that’s just plain childish and so typically Christian.

    I mean, after all, it’s what Jesus would do, right? It must be, because otherwise you doing it would make you a hypocrite!

    bobby | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  599. Heidi’s prejudices? What prejudices would those be? I mean, you’re a virulent homophobe, so of course everyone else must be prejudice too, right?

    Ah, Christianity. It just lends itself to ridicule so elegantly. I could do this forever.

    bobby | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  600. Ooh, is she taking her ball and going home? Mwahaha! Thanks for teaching me that game, pplr. She’s probably going to cry again, and pplr made it all possible. He should take a bow. Unless he feels that being obnoxious until somebody stops talking is only ok for his side, that is. I didn’t even throw in the willfully ignorant and purposely obtuse routines yet.

    It’s funny how she talks about assumptions right after saying how Bobby wants to go around killing people, btw. I didn’t know podlings were so funny. Also, she never did read the first 500 posts, did she? lol.

    Heidi | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  601. Hey Heidi, I think she’s finally cracked. I must have given her enough Jesus points for a cross, because she’s really playing the martyr now!

    bobby | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  602. The sad thing is how truly representative she is of Christians I’ve encountered all my life. I’m pretty sure they don’t understand the concept of hypocrisy. They couldn’t possibly or they wouldn’t keep being hypocrites.

    WWJD? If he had existed, he damned sure wouldn’t be emulating these idiots, that’s the true irony here.

    bobby | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  603. Heh. If he ever did show up, I’d bet he’d dope slap a bunch of them. And then Ann would cry.

    Heidi | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  604. Honestly I don’t think the bits about the Orthodox Jews and the Indian frog marriages should be here. To criticize them, makes atheists look ethnocentric and as intolerant as those who kill in the name of G-d. Also please keep in mind, non-religious people kill too and people take things to the extreme in other ways besides religion, like politics.

    Sara | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  605. Oh no, another pod person. This one won’t even type the word god. Non religious people kill too. So what the hell does that mean? It’s okay for theists because non-theists do it too? Two wrongs make a right? Great. Another one incapable of logical thought. It’s an epidemic!

    bobby | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  606. @Bobby: Is there a poster up in the hive or something? one that says “Don’t read the previous 600 posts,” possibly?

    Heidi | Aug 3, 2009 | Reply

  607. Actually I’m surprised there haven’t been more of them. They can’t stand that we’re allowed to say whatever we like, they’d censor us in a hot second if they could.

    I’m really surprised by their dogged persistence on this Stalin issue. I can only imagine they get brainwashed about it in church, and they need to believe he killed in the name of atheism so they don’t need to feel so bad about the fact that Christians constantly kill in the name of Christianity.

    bobby | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  608. I think there must be something special for them about Dave and his site, though. I don’t usually see them going on for so long.

    Heidi | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  609. Ann

    Where did the “gay activits” come from? Pushing black people out of their homes via force? I’m going to ask you to reference this one because it sounds about as illogical/unlikely as Heidi trying to claim atheists haven’t killed anyone due to their beliefs.

    I’m glad that you support civil unions in principle, my next question is would you support them via an effort to get them on the ballot and then vote for (rather than against) them?

    Heidi

    That is actually the 2nd time you’ve talked about me. You have yet to address the fact that your claim was not supported via evidence.

    About the ____ supposed “Church of Christ”. They are a cult/mind control organization. If you look at them their patterns of operation involve a lot of manipulation/dishonesty. An atheist group can (probably already has) made use of the same manipulation techniques because any such group isn’t about the supposed beliefs of said group but control. You are also disrespecting a fair number of people (religious and non) who have tried to combat mind control groups by inappropriately throwing them in with religion as a whole.

    Also, it is a point of pride of mine that a leader for the local branch at one point did/gave a speech against me to a group of his followers/victims.

    pplr | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  610. *sigh*

    1. Belief without evidence does not merit respect.

    2. I said nothing that was untrue. That bugs the crap out of you, huh?

    3. I will continue to talk about whomever I like until/unless Dave asks me not to. As you refuse to respect my request to leave me the hell alone, I refuse to respect anything that comes out of your keyboard. Two way street, honey. But you could always, oh, I don’t go away if you don’t like what you’re reading.

    All the best. :-)

    @Bobby: Of course he’s totally not ever going to go away, because he’s a Last Word kind of guy. He’ll never leave unless he’s granted the Last Word. Ever. Period, end of sentence. Like, he’ll still be here in ten years if he doesn’t get his way. I suppose he must be accruing mega-points for that. Unless he gets to the “other side” and finds out the only people who got it right are Dianic Wiccans. Diana’s pretty cool, but I’m not sure how tolerant she’d be with podlings. Especially the kind that keep talking in circles forever expecting everybody else to shut up and give them the Last Word.

    Heidi | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  611. @pplr: When there is evidence to the contrary, scientists change their opinions to suit. It’s more comparable to fashion designers and the changing seasons, than to religion.

    Re: Stalin
    Name me one openly atheist person who is in a position of political power, anywhere in the world.

    ::shrugs:: Seems to me that what was done was horrible, but that’s what, one strike against us compared to how many by you?

    Besides which, it [torture] wasn’t used to “encourage people to be atheists”. Remind me of this conversation another day when I’m not so unwell. Though, bobby seems to have stated it well.

    “An atheist group can (probably already has) made use of the same manipulation techniques because any such group isn’t about the supposed beliefs of said group but control.”

    Until you have proof, I’m just going to have to dismiss this as false inductive reasoning. I’ve never seen any atheist group that exists purely for the purposes of propagating atheism. Lots for theist religions, though.

    @Ann: Thanks. Peace, unfortunately, is becoming an option that’s further and further from my grasp.

    ::shrugs:: I’m 17. That’s 17 years more than some ‘people’ get to experience. Might well get out while I’m ahead, right?

    “In the meantime I try to be the best at being a person that I can.”

    Funny. We do that too. All of us. Including the ones your God would smite for being “against His plan”.

    “The only people I’ve seen use force to silence others’ opinions lately are gay activists throwing blacks and Christians out of their neighborhoods and harassing people at work that showed up on the prop 8 support lists.”

    Proof, please. I’m a gay activist, and I’ve done none of the above.

    @pplr & Ann: Civil unions are not at all the same as marriages. The legal benefits in marriage differ immensely. If you’re going to have civil unions that possess the same legal benefits as those in marriages, what’s the point in having different names for them?

    As a GLBT ally and bisexual teen, I protest strongly against your [Ann's] opinion that we’re trying to “stick it to the straight community”, and that we’re going to be bringing in newfangled marriage ideas. I don’t understand how you could possibly imagine that we don’t love the same as you. I don’t understand why you think we’re incapable of holding the same relationships as you, of wanting a family the same as you. Simply because we want them with a person who possesses the same genitalia as we do, does not make us “lesser” or any less deserving in any way.

    @Heidi: We already have summer camps.

    blufindr | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  612. @blufindr: I wish they’d had those camps when I was a kid. the only time I ever got to go to “camp” was day camp at an Adventist VBS. Macaroni necklaces for Jesus. Yawn.

    Gay marriage is doing fine where I am, so there is hope. *Real* marriage with equal rights. Unfortunately, the federal government doesn’t recognize all these rights, but our Attorney General is working on that. Separate is never equal.

    My daughter was an officer in her high school’s GSA for a year or two. We have gay friends and family members, and the hell with letting anybody discriminate against them. Getting off soapbox now. It just really bugs me when some people want to be more equal than others.

    Btw, do you think it’s as funny as I do that pplr actually thought he could pre-design my answers right down to how many words I was permitted, and still totally expected me to answer his drivel? Particularly given he’d asked me the same thing about 30 times already. Now he’s all pretending he won something. Whatever gets him through the night, I guess.

    Heidi | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  613. @Heidi: I’ve never actually been to summer camp. But um, that doesn’t sound appealing whatsoever.

    Apparently, the govt only just recognised same-sex couples, and grants them similar rights to de facto partnerships. But um, this is nowhere near the same thing as marriage. Still, baby steps, right?

    I dunno, arguing with oneself… doesn’t seem quite right to me. Then again, fervent faith in something that doesn’t exist really doesn’t seem right to me, either. ::shrugs::

    blufindr | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  614. To Sara,Ann and other godbots:

    Uncle Joe ordered the deaths of priests and
    other godbotherers to bust up his competition.
    What he cared about was power,pure and simple.
    Anyhow. He is old news. The present reality
    is that godbots like Scott Roeder are a clear
    and present danger. You are not above profiting
    thereby! I don’t like you. No,I don’t like you
    at all.

    proud kuffar | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  615. Here are some people that were killed for being Christians. Looks like it happened just yesterday. Atheists didn’t do it, mind you. Muslims did, because one guy’s desert god is better than the other guy’s desert god.

    Unreal.

    @blufindr: You guys don’t have gay marriage yet? Sorry to hear that. :-(

    The present reality
    is that godbots like Scott Roeder are a clear
    and present danger.

    Agreed. Where were the rest of them during the years Roeder was advocating stalking Dr. Tiller on the Operation Rescue message boards?

    Heidi | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  616. Heidi

    “I said nothing that was untrue.”

    You did and when presented with evidence you not only failed to address the evidence but both insulted and accused me of stuff.

    You now claim that this is a “two way street” as if you are defending yourself when the truth is I’ve been civil and you (each time I’ve commented to you recently) have not been respectful and were the first/initial person to comment. Your claims to defense are dishonest.

    Also, Einstein had/has an understanding of God different from many. He did not say he doubts God exists and isn’t an atheist (as you implied he was by saying he wasn’t on/with the “woo”.)

    Blufindr

    There are plenty of atheist government officials in China right now-not a place marked by its political freedom.

    I referred to more than just Stalin. Those times atheist governments have come to power they have often been just as discriminatory, if not bloodthirsty, as theocracies can be. And this is during the modern era when western civ views violence based on religious beliefs (or the lack thereof) as unacceptable.

    pplr | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  617. Dude, the ONLY reason you came here was so that you could martyr yourself and say how horribly unreasonable we all are. As Bobby has said, “earning the Jesus points.” Once I realized this, I started helping you out with it. It’s a time honored practice. Ask Judas. I should probably be up for sainthood, but being unappreciated goes with the facilitator territory.

    And again, if you don’t want to read what I type, go away. Oh wait. Last Word. Can’t do that. Meanwhile, I’ll keep accusing you of all the “stuff” you’re actually doing. Like following the script. The guy in this video has a copy, too. And he’s also wrong, as is pointed out to him by audience members.

    I’ll also accuse you of being intellectually dishonest, offensive, and of gross misrepresentation of what many of us here have said. Plus there’s the bit where you try oh so hard to set me up with your “gotchas,” and then get put out and whiny when I won’t play. That’s cute. I bet that makes you a lot of friends. At least if the friends are drinking the Kool-Aid, too.

    Oh, and you have a decided personality deficit.

    Heidi | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  618. blufindr- you wanted proof. And I meant blacks out of gay neighborhoods, I didn’t write clearly.

    Here are some links– http://suckaforlife.com/upodcast/tag/racism/

    http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2008/11/n-word-and-raci.html

    http://www.labeez.org/2008/12/proposition-8-vote-stirs-black-gay-animosity-debate.php

    http://www.hollywoodgrind.com/elton-john-opposes-gay-marriage-yes-on-proposition-8/

    /www.wilshireandwashington.com/2008/11/prop-8-and-the.html

    Ann | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  619. But, that’s kind of a tangent from the more significant point that propaganda against believers based on a very one-sided look at crazies is not fair and irresponsible.

    Ann | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  620. blufindr- “::shrugs:: Seems to me that what was done was horrible, but that’s what, one strike against us compared to how many by you?”

    Stalin killed millions of people, tens of thousands of Christians, so if you compare the numbers, he wins.

    “Name me one openly atheist person who is in a position of political power, anywhere in the world.”

    Kim Jong-il; Hu Jintao

    Ann | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  621. blufindr– For you to say things like getting out while ahead makes me sad.

    At seventeen it may be hard to see, but there are many joys that when you’re an old lady like me will make you so glad you hung in there even if it may seem unbearable now.

    Last year, I went through a horrible crisis where I scared my husb w/ suic. thoughts. Medication didn’t work because there was an actual serious problem that needed to be resolved. Sorry if lame, but I was helped by

    1)finding someone to champion (my kids–I thought who would fight for them if I was gone) sorry, it sounds like your family connections aren’t there for this one, but maybe work at a charity.

    2) Fresh air and sunshine on walks helped.

    3) “To do” lists to focus on accomplishments I could control.

    4) Being open with friends so I could believe that they still liked me even with my issue.

    I also have a great friend who could possibly be a good resource to talk to. I gave my e-mail in a different comment to you earlier.

    Best wishes, seriously, I wish I could help.

    Ann | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  622. Heidi

    “the ONLY reason you came here was so that you could martyr yourself and say how horribly unreasonable we all are”

    I already said I first posted here because I saw comments that mischaracterized. I don’t need to be a martyr to comment about what I see as inaccurate and perhaps misleading/dishonest.

    I’ve also praised a few of the atheists that posted here. If the “we” you mention represents the assumption that I’m here to criticize all atheists you’re wrong and I’ve already pointed out how.

    Blufindr

    Glad you’re a LGBT ally. Given that many gay people don’t even have access to civil unions they would still be a step up, though I’m open to/supportive of allowing gay marriage itself.

    pplr | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  623. @Ann: Since you didn’t read the first several hundred posts, you missed that she (blufindr) is battling stress and body dysmorphia, which has led to hypo-tension.

    @pplr: Yes, well how did you happen to see “mischaracterizations?” Do you regularly follow blog posts about atheism so you can start arguments? Because it sounds that way from what you just said. And why are you still here? You did what you said you were here to do. What more do you think you’re going to accomplish by continuing the argument? Oh wait, you haven’t gotten the Last Word yet, so you can’t leave, right?

    Oh, and by “we” I mean myself and other people. It’s in the dictionary.

    Also, I meant to post this before to correct your impression of Einstein, and of what I said, since you yet again twisted my words into what you wish I’d said.

    It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954) From Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press

    As I said, Einstein did not believe in supernatural woo. You could argue it out with him, but he’s dead. And if your worldview is correct he’s in hell, since he was never a christian. With Ghandi.

    Heidi | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  624. bobby,
    I am saddened by your inability to engage in reasoned discourse and how your only option is to engage in arguments from outrage, arguments to ridicule and arguments to embarrassment.

    What do you mean by “I’ve had a look at the link you posted” do you mean that you went to the post that provides the hyperlinks to the detail research that discredits evilbible.com or did you just read the post I linked to above and satisfied yourself in thinking that coming back here to ridicule me was enough?

    I suppose that I must guess: you did not read my carefully researched refutations of evilbible.com and thus, you are a pseudo-skeptic. You merely took whatever evilbible.com stated and believe it by faith without questioning them, without checking the citations, without reading for context—evilbible.com said it so it must be true.

    I have proven that they are manipulating you and they are successful because you simply believe what they tell you and are not skeptical enough to question them.

    You claim that “The bible has god saying to sell your daughters as sex slaves”—this is false and I proved it.

    You claim that “The bible has god saying to…do human sacrifice”—this is false and I proved it.

    You claim that “The bible has god saying…kill those who offend you”—this is false and I proved it.

    As to these things and those which “reasonable people, atheists in particular, wouldn’t dream of doing”—if I were you I would not worry so much about those things in the Bible which you find commendable but I would worry more about the fact that you have no premise upon which to base your condemnations beyond, perhaps, your personal preferences.

    Mariano | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  625. “WWM- you are now demonstrating your faith in things not supported by facts. I have given strong evidence that Hitler was not a Christian.”

    You have not given any evidence. You have presented things that people other then Hitler said about Hitler. Some Christian trying to save the name of Christianity saying Hitler said something isn’t much in the way of evidence. Not to mention, as we have already stated here, the Pope refused to denounce Hitler in any way. So the pope gave Hitler his backing by not saying what he was doing was wrong. I love how Christians always twist the truth and use unreliable sources for their arguments.

    As for everything else that’s been posted since my last post, there is just too much for me to read it all right now.

    WWM | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  626. Are you back again?! I would have thought, given how badly you embarrassed yourself you’d have got back to the rock you crawled out from under, but never mind.

    I did indeed visit your pathetic little site. Your assertions that the citations on evilbible.com are lies is pathetic. I checked out many of them, the others I had seen before. They are all true. Saying they aren’t doesn’t make you right, it makes you demented.

    You have proven nothing other than that you are a liar. Given that you’re a pod person that’s not surprising.

    I don’t where you get this idea that I’m angry. I’m not. Fed up, but not angry. My discourse is entirely reasoned. I’m not the one advocating for fairy tales, you are. Embarrass? I don’t need to embarrass you idiots, you embarrass yourselves. How typical that you project onto others. Yes, I ridicule. If you behave like an idiot it’s what you deserve.

    Your refutations are not “carefully researched”, they’re outright lies and you know it.

    bobby | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  627. I guess I need to answer one more thing cause it just caught my eye.

    “I suppose that I must guess: you did not read my carefully researched refutations of evilbible.com and thus, you are a pseudo-skeptic. You merely took whatever evilbible.com stated and believe it by faith without questioning them, without checking the citations, without reading for context—evilbible.com said it so it must be true.”

    I cannot say I’ve read everything on evilbible.com, but I have spent a good 2-3 hours on there and compared what evilbible.com said and checked the passages they were talking about. Every one I checked, said exactly what evilbible.com said. The fact that the bible constantly contradicts itself doesn’t mean what evilbible.com says is false. everything evilbibl.com says is true. check the passages that it mentions and you will see what they say you will see. By saying believe only one side of the contradictions in the bible is the same as saying “this version suits me better so the other stuff isn’t there.”

    WWM | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  628. You’re not missing anything, WWM. It’s all more Christian horseshit, especially Mariano, who is only here to promote his pack-of-lies blog.

    bobby | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  629. Beat that dead horse into the ground! Oh yeah!

    WTF is it that you pod people want? Do you want to argue forever? Do you hope to shut us up? Do you really think that you can harass away freedom of speech? Do you think this is the only place we comment? Or do you just enjoy repeating yourselves and being generally asshattish?

    Heidi | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  630. He’s telling outright lies. It’s what so many of these brainwashed fools do. They have to combat that nagging doubt they have about the big lie they by in to.

    bobby | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  631. or buy into, even…

    bobby | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  632. They absolutely loathe freedom of speech. It’s a delicious bit of irony (you know, that thing that Ann is so unclear about), they rail against totalitarian states while desiring one of their own.

    bobby | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  633. Contrary to your assertion, I don’t. I am a libertarian. I’d like everyone to be able to say their peace. I just would like to be able to try to present evidence to counteract propaganda when it’s presented.

    Ann | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  634. Also, why are we expected to defend evilbible.com? I never even heard of it until Mariano started his tirade about it. Which he did because he’s playing that write-both-sides-of-the-script game, too. “Hey, this is what I want to argue with, so please change the subject and accommodate me!” The hell?

    Heidi | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  635. I have proven that they are manipulating you and they are successful because you simply believe what they tell you and are not skeptical enough to question them.

    Almost missed that part! This is astounding! A Christian telling an atheist that they’re being manipulated and simply believing what they’re told and not questioning. Wow. I nominate that for ironic comment of the year.

    Hey, Ann, now THAT’S irony!

    bobby | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  636. .I’d like everyone to be able to say their peace.

    As long as they don’t act gay around you, right?

    Heidi | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  637. You’re right, Heidi. You should stick to the point of the blog. Atheists don’t do the horrible things that believers do.

    Ann | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  638. @Bobby: Yeah, that was a good one, wasn’t it?

    Heidi | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  639. I don’t get your last entry, bobby. Was it directed at me?

    Ann | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  640. a libertarian! the biggest idiots on the political spectrum! Now it all makes sense. And of course you completely fail to see the contradiciton between being a libertarian and a Christian at the same time. Wow. We need to give you a Darwin award.

    Back to the shallow end of the gene pool, Ann. You’re so far out of your depth you’re going to drown. Oh, wait…never mind, stick around. I’ll make the popcorn.

    bobby | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  641. I don’t care whether anyone acts gay. But I believe that it is against God’s best advice. I have never even expressed that opinion publicly before happening upon this blog because I enjoy Mr. Hitt’s political views.

    But it is my belief and I believe in freedom of expression.

    Ann | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  642. No, Ann, you simply fail to grasp anything that isn’t in two syllable words. You also apparently don’t read all the posts, as Heidi has pointed out many times. I was talking to the only idiot here that’s a bigger idiot than you.

    Now i’ve said my PIECE.

    bobby | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  643. OK, bobby, you’re officially smarter than me. I didn’t correct “principal” when you used it incorrectly. But I’m sure that does make my “worldview” less valid than yours.

    Ann | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  644. And Ann, one more time, since you’re so thick, the only propaganda here is Christian. There’s no such thing as atheist propaganda. We’d have to have a belief system first, and we don’t. We choose not to believe in your sky god, therefore, no propaganda. What you choose to think is that saying there is no god = propaganda. Not so. Doesn’t matter what they told you in church. They lie to you Ann. No, really.

    bobby | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  645. Well you should correct me if I make a grammatical error, Ann. It helps. I’m a writer, I need to be aware of these things. Also it shows you are capable of thought. Congratulations.

    Your world view is so invalid it’s laughable, but that’s another matter.

    Oh, and another thing, god’s best advice?! Now your imaginary buddy gives advice? he’s the master of the universe and he…advises? So let me get this straight, he advises people to not be gay? Wow. Does he advise people to be libertarians too? If so that’s one incredibly dumb-ass god you’ve got there!

    bobby | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  646. Don’t tempt me to digress. Planned economies have worked out swimmingly wherever they’ve been tried…. NOT!!

    Ann | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  647. Nowhere you’ve ever been, anyway. I can say for certain you’ve never been to New Zealand after that comment. Nor Denmark.

    bobby | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  648. I’m still reeling from this revelation that one can call oneself a Christian AND a libertarian. The teachings of the imaginary Jesus (which were ancient long before Jesus as made up) are the complete antithesis of libertarian doctrine. I’d bet only a schizophrenic could hold both of these things as true and not see the glaring contradiction. Every libertarian idiot I’ve encountered up to now has been proud to proclaim themselves atheists.

    I think Ann is having us on, even she couldn’t be this stupid.

    bobby | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  649. bobby, — you keep accusing Christians that their fondest dream being to silence everyone, yet I just want to be able to worship as I choose and have freedom of speech to defend my self against propaganda against my group; totally consistent w/ libertarianism.

    Maybe it is you who is projecting. Planned economies end up silencing and coercing people much more often than more free ones.

    Oh, it’s also rich that you fought me tooth and nail that Stalin didn’t kill people because of your shared spiritual belief; even though I had clear evidence that he did. And now it turns out that you share his political belief, too, which was what you tried to steer me to for his motivation.

    Ann | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  650. Are you smoking crack? Are you one of those crack smoking homophobic, Christian Libertarians?

    Ann, Ann, Ann. What are we going to do with you? You still don’t know the meaning of the word propaganda. I’m starting to think you’re Purple People Eater in disguise. He does the same inane crap, using words and concepts that are way over his head.

    We don’t have any propaganda, Ann. We don’t have a belief system. And no, if all you wanted was to worship in private then you would. But you’re not. You’re not here defending anything, you’re desperately trying to convince yourself that faith isn’t the crock of shit that it is.

    Planned economies are evil? This is pathetic. You’re not only brainwashed by religious fairy tales, you’re brainwashed by political ones too. You’re firing on all stupidity cylinders!

    Stalin. Here we go again. I didn’t fight you tooth and nail, that’s your little wet dream. All I did was point out the fallacy of saying he did what he did in the name of atheism. He used atheism as a tool, as most totalitarian dictators do. You need to believe it was done strictly for the sake of atheism to drag atheists down into the hole that Christians dig themselves into when they kill for Jesus.

    You have no evidence, clear or otherwise to the contrary. One of the sites you gave clearly states what I said above. You chose to ignore it, as Christians do with anything that doesn’t work for them.

    I share Stalin’s political beliefs? I’m a Communist? You really are smoking crack. I live in a mildly socialist Democracy and I like it just fine. All political systems are flawed, but the one I’m living under is the best of what I’ve encountered, and I’ve been all over the world, so my experience is much more vast than yours. You simply regurgitate what you’ve been spoon fed by fellow idiots.

    You’re way out of your depth here, Ann. I’ve been going at all this with one hand tied behind my back to try to make it bit more even. If I ever ramp it up you’ll be absolutely devastated. I can think and talk circles around you.

    bobby | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  651. They totally love that Stalin thing, don’t they? It’s like if they wish hard enough, they can make it so. Seriously. Paul Wooley from the “Christian Think Tank Theos” ran the script, too. If you notice, the audience members shake their heads the minute he says it. And then they correct him. But like Ann and pplr, he *really* wants people to have killed in the name of “where is your evidence?”

    Notice in the comments section there are multiple people just on the first page trying to correct the willful misunderstand as well. I like this one:

    good argument from Chloe Clifford-firth.

    People who have no religion (I.E atheists) have done bad things, terrible things.
    Religious extreemists do bad things, terrible things.

    Difference? One does not use “faith” as an excuse to do so.
    The whole “atheists have done terrible things” is a complete non-argument in that none of the people mentioned (stalin, pol-pot) were motivated for their action by this lack of belief in a god.

    Thats the point.

    Which is exactly what we’ve been saying all along here, whether or not pplr wants to believe it.

    Oh, and about that “belief system” business, here’s a huge thing that none of these people get. My dislike for religious people who shove their religion in my face, proselytize, and want to legislate our bodies, our sex lives, and our civil rights does not stem from my atheism. I felt the same exact way when I was a kid and actually believed in the sky fairy. I didn’t like it then, and I don’t like it now. My “religious” belief system consists of “oh? Do you have evidence to back that up? No? I’m not buying it, then. Let me know if you ever find any.”

    Also, I love the hypocrisy about propaganda. If I stood on a street corner or at a mall and handed out booklets saying that people should demand evidence before they believe in the supernatural, I would be called “militant” and sent on my way. But it’s perfectly fine for fundies to hand out anti-Halloween tracts full of lies on the next corner up from my house during trick-or-treat. And this part is something much more prevalent among Christians in the US than other religious groups. I haven’t gotten any wandering Muslims handing me paperwork. Because if they (Muslims) or Scientologists did the pushy religion things Christians do, there would be a public outcry. Picture it. “We need to teach the controversy of the origins of life. Kids should be free to learn about Xenu and the body thetans in the volcanoes. It’s just as valid as creationism.” I can’t argue with the last statement, but the hell if anybody but Tom Cruise would want people teaching their kids about Xenu and the aliens in the public schools.

    OT: I really wish this blog had comment preview so I could see if my comments are too long before I submit them.

    Heidi | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  652. I guess it was. Sorry. Again. :-(

    Heidi | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  653. Yes, as I said, I think the Stalin bullshit has to do with trying to level the playing field over Christians killing for Jesus. That really upsets them that they can’t make a valid argument for atheists killing in the name of atheism, so they twist the facts and believe their own crap. It’s sad really.

    The belief system lie is the same. They have beliefs, so what we have must be belief too. We only deny that their beliefs are valid. That’s not a belief system, it’s a calm, rational look at the facts. How they translate that into a belief system I have no idea. Both of the regular pods here continually use terms they completely fail to understand correctly, and then ignore it when it’s pointed out to them.

    I think they have to, they have no other ammo. Rational thought escapes them anyway, and they’re conditioned to believe all atheists are liars from the start, so it’s easy to think we’re lying when we point out the errors they make.

    You have to remember that they’re brainwashed, Heidi. They don’t realize it. They think it’s a lie and no amount of calm, rational evidence is going to convince them otherwise, they’ve been trained to ignore it and continue to spout psycho-babble. It’s all they’re ever going to do.

    Watch and see.

    bobby | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  654. To clarify, the reason I say they’re brainwashed is because neither of them seems to capable of comprehending the difference between dictators using atheism as a tool and killing in the name of atheism. I’ve explained it very carefully several times now, and all they do is toe the party line that they’ve had drilled into them.

    That’s what brainwashing does, it conditions you to believe only what you’ve been told and to blot out any reasoning to the contrary. Neither of them can see what’s being said to them, if they could they would try to debate the point, and neither has made any attempt to do so, they just repeat the mantra they’ve been taught. Brainwashing, I tell you!

    bobby | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  655. I’m typing too fast. Sorry for the typos.

    bobby | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  656. Hey, Heidi. Since the podlings won’t leave us be, I propose we ask them to explain some glaring contradictions in the bible. It is, after all, written by the big fella himself, or so Christianity says.

    Let’s start with all the exhortations in Genesis and Exodus about him being a jealous and wrathful god and then Big J saying later on that god is all love and light.

    Isn’t that one enormous blunder? Which is it? is he jealous and vengeful or hearts and flowers? Was Big J a lying sack? Was he pulling everybody’s leg to get them to go along with the program?

    Enquiring minds want to know!

    bobby | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  657. Oh wait, I know! He moves in mysterious ways! Doh!

    bobby | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  658. Yeah, I think the brainwashing is a valid comparison. I can’t get my head around the idea of a grown person never wanting any evidence of something upon which they’re going to base their whole life.

    I’m going to go with the jealous, wrathful version being right. Like when he sent the bears to eat all those “little children” for making fun of Elisha’s baldness. That was just plain mean spirited. And how nearly half of his most important laws ever are narcissistic. Plus he’s always smiting. What’s with that? It doesn’t sound loving to me.

    Plus, if I were all powerful I would certainly be helping people out. World Hunger, gone. Plus I’d put some atmosphere on Mars and warm it up a bit with plants and stuff so that when I heal all the sick people the Earth wouldn’t get overcrowded. Maybe boost the gravity, too, because low gravity would mess with our physiology.

    Oh, and I’d give whales their own harpoons so they could shoot back. I’m quite fond of cetaceans, so I’ve got a thing against whaling. Pinnipeds, too, so maybe I should give clubs to the baby seals. Or machine guns.

    Heidi | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  659. Wow, bears eating little children? And they call me mean spirited! So it’s okay for their god but not for me? Isn’t that…hypocrisy?

    bobby | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  660. Why, yes, I believe it is.

    Heidi | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  661. Hey, you don’t suppose…nah…

    bobby | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  662. I’m still waiting for any evidence that what evilbible.com says isn’t true. I’ve looked up many passages on evilbible.com and found exactly what that site said I would find. Many of them I already knew, others were the first time I noticed them.

    “Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel.” (Deuteronomy 17:12)

    “Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. “The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him.” (Deuteronomy 13:13-19)

    can you refute that these are in the bible? I can continue if you wish

    WWM | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  663. as for evilbible.com, I think I’m the first who mentioned it on here. I brought it up before the whole war broke out with pplr and the other pod people.

    WWM | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  664. Oh, ok. I thought that guy just pulled it out of thin air and started bitching about it. which had me totally confused. lol.

    Heidi | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  665. Actually I first mentioned it on June 30th. WWM thanked me a couple of days later. Just for the record.

    bobby | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  666. And that was why Mariano addressed his little screed to me. I pissed him off by tipping people off to the site.

    bobby | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  667. One more thing, pissing people off is one of my specialities. No, really. ;-)

    bobby | Aug 4, 2009 | Reply

  668. @pplr: Atheist governments that also happen to constrain political freedom, do not mean that they do it in the name of atheist. Do you know the diffference?

    @Ann: I don’t see racism. I see people sticking up for their own rights by tossing out the people who would repress them. And no, not like Christians would be doing by tossing out the atheists in their community. We don’t want anything but the same rights you do, as theists and heterosexuals do.

    And I don’t know a single gay person who is racist, as well. ::shrugs::

    I don’t think the numbers there are quite accurate. Do you have statistics on the number of atheists killed by various religious rampages throughout the ages? I didn’t think so.

    I’m in senior year. I have no time, literally, to work at a charity or really get out of the house. Not if I want to get into medical school, which is where I really want to be. And not with the family disputes that break out erratically. There are few, if any, accomplishments I can control. Most of it is completely out of my hands. As for friends… what friends?

    I did end up skipping through a lot of the Stalin stuff. IDK, and IDC any more. ::sigh::

    blufindr | Aug 5, 2009 | Reply

  669. @Bobby: That explains why I didn’t remember it. June was a long time ago. lol.

    Heh. Pissing people off? You? I bow to your skill. ;-)

    @blufindr: Med school? AWESOME! I really hope that works out for you!

    I’ve seen a surprising amount of prejudices in the black community, and it makes me sad. I guess I expect more from them. Which is maybe my own shortcoming. But for example, I used to read a column in the print newspaper by a guy out of San Diego named Joseph Perkins. I thought he seemed like a decent guy with pretty good insights. But then one year he went off on this HUGE pagans vs. Christians deal. Apparently some local Christian group or other had been holding an Easter ceremony on some hill for I don’t remember how many years. And this one year a pagan group booked its use first with the city to celebrate their equinox or Beltane or something. This was INTOLERABLE to Mr. Perkins. He went on a huge rant about the “godless pagans” (way to do your research, dude), and how they had no right to steal the city property out from under the poor Christians. It made me sick, and I never read his column again. I almost wrote to him and asked him how he would feel about an article that was the same as his word for word, but substituted black people for pagans and white people for Christians. But in the end, I decided he wouldn’t listen anyway. As is evidenced by trying to get other people to listen. Ahem.

    Heidi | Aug 5, 2009 | Reply

  670. Heidi

    Einstein said he didn’t believe God interacted with people on a personal level. Not that he didn’t exist. Moreover he said God was a grand scale organizer/creator of the universe. What you claimed does not represent him and misuses that quote.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein

    Last sentence under title: Personal God

    “In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.”

    Under the title: Nature of God

    “I’m not an atheist.”

    Blufindr

    The fact that many atheist governments have suppressed political freedom shows they are not prone to promoting liberty. Consider that an “atheist” government is not neutral on the subject of religion nor is it trying to be (limited gray areas with some religion/government mixing or interaction). An atheist government is like a theocracy in that it tries to push a certain view of religion on its people.

    pplr | Aug 5, 2009 | Reply

  671. I’ll use small words so you can understand. I. DID. NOT. Say. He. Was. An. Atheist. I. Said. He. Did. Not. Believe. In. Woo. Stop. Re-writing. What. I. Said.

    Seriously, are you always this obtuse? Because, damn.

    Heidi | Aug 5, 2009 | Reply

  672. If “woo” does not define religious/theistic thought then define it differently instead of using in such a fashion that it implies it is.

    I can understand many big or small words just fine. But my understanding of how you use “woo” is based on what the what it appears to be when you, in specific, use it.

    pplr | Aug 5, 2009 | Reply

  673. Oh, ok. How many words am I allowed this time?

    I have been explaining woo to you for WEEKS now. Woo = the supernatural:

    su⋅per⋅nat⋅u⋅ral
      /ˌsupərˈnætʃərəl, -ˈnætʃrəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [soo-per-nach-er-uhl, -nach-ruhl] Show IPA
    Use supernatural in a Sentence
    –adjective
    1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
    2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.
    3. of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.
    4. of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.
    –noun
    5. a being, place, object, occurrence, etc., considered as supernatural or of supernatural origin; that which is supernatural, or outside the natural order.
    6. behavior supposedly caused by the intervention of supernatural beings.
    7. direct influence or action of a deity on earthly affairs.
    8. the supernatural,
    a. supernatural beings, behavior, and occurrences collectively.
    b. supernatural forces and the supernatural plane of existence: a deep fear of the supernatural.

    Gods, alien abductions, ghosts, fairies, leprechauns, crypozoology, ESP, telekinesis… woo.

    Heidi | Aug 5, 2009 | Reply

  674. “Woo = the supernatural”

    Einstein was ok with his own version of “Woo” (where he feels God doesn’t talk to people as individuals).

    pplr | Aug 5, 2009 | Reply

  675. Oh, FFS, do I need to use small words again? He did NOT believe in the supernatural. His “god” was the natural workings of the universe. Nat-ur-al. Which is the opposite of su-per-nat-ur-al. They are an-to-nyms.

    I am just shaking my head here at the amount of wishful typing that comes out of you, dude.

    ___
    And since I’m back here again…

    Oh, look! Neo-Crusaders who consider themselves a Christian army! And they’re bent on wiping out Islam in Iraq! Imagine that. Hired by Dubya, too. But I’m sure they aren’t trying to push their beliefs on anyone. That never happens anymore. Only people who want evidence would do anything like that.

    Heidi | Aug 5, 2009 | Reply

  676. If Einstein felt there was no God then he wouldn’t have had a problem saying he was an atheist at some point in his life and wouldn’t have gotten mad when he felt some atheists were twisting his words to misrepresent him.

    He may have felt the God you define was supernatural was, in fact, natural. In which case the 2 of you may disagree on what is “woo”.

    The link didn’t work when I tried to use it.

    People who only “want evidence” don’t generally torture others to get them to agree. Yet, Atheists have.

    Why is it you have more trouble admitting this than a Christian does with the Inquisition?

    pplr | Aug 5, 2009 | Reply

  677. “Why is it you have more trouble admitting this than a Christian does with the Inquisition?”

    This is very simple to answer by repeating what has already been said many times. I’ll try to put it differently this time. Governments that have tried to outlaw religion, through whatever means, did not do so “in the name of atheism.” They did so because they saw organized religion as something they could not control, and therefor a threat to their government.

    If you cannot understand it this time, I suggest you go back to 1st grade and work you way up through all over again.

    Also, I’m still waiting for any refutation of what I said about evilbible.com. I even have 2 quotes FROM THE BIBLE that they are talking about… and heading to a different section of the bible to point out a contradiction only weakens your case.

    WWM | Aug 5, 2009 | Reply

  678. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwrl6TBrFAE

    What is so hard for you to understand about “I do not believe in a personal god” pplr? Which word didn’t you get?

    People who only “want evidence” don’t generally torture others to get them to agree. Yet, Atheists have.

    Oh My FSM. You even SAY it and you don’t understand it. It is exactly that. Atheists who kill, torture etc. are NOT doing it because they’re atheists. They do it because they’re assholes. It is not possible to do something in the name of “you don’t have evidence.” If Stalin had up and converted to christianity, it would not have meant he was suddenly working in its name. Unless he started using religion to justify his actions, it would simply mean he was still an asshole and believed something different.

    Hitler repeatedly stated that he was doing the lord’s work, that he was acting as a Catholic, and he invoked god at every chance he got. God was his reason and his excuse. THIS is why he was acting in the name of god. It’s not simply because he said he was Catholic.

    I know the difference is upsetting to theists, because it means the ground is washing out from under your argument. So maybe you should keep up the wishful thinking. It seems to work for you in the rest of your life’s endeavors. And, since every single person who is still posting but is not part of the GodSquad has already explained this to you more than once, I must conclude that you are unable to understand the concept, or that you are being willfully ignorant. So do me a favor and Don’t Freaking Ask Me the Same Question Again. And Again. And again, and again, and again… Re-read the answers from the last five times you asked if you want to know again. This is why I didn’t answer you the last time you asked. How many times do you need it explained, FFS?

    Heidi | Aug 5, 2009 | Reply

  679. Heidi, the way you put things…. It gives me a warm fuzzy feeling ;) you rip apart the theist arguments so simply and completely it makes me think there is yet some hope for humanity.

    WWM | Aug 5, 2009 | Reply

  680. WWM

    Do you doubt the sincerity of those government (and their enforcers, theorists, and propagandists) when they say there is not any God?

    Do you doubt they were sincerely atheists?

    Of the website you referred to, I’ve been letting you and Mariano argue about it. If it claims that God wanted Jephthah to sacrifice his then I would say it has at least one flaw and therefore could have others. See above for the discussion Heidi and I had about that.

    Heidi

    No “personal god” is not “no God”.

    Hitler also said, in private, that he viewed Christianity as a bad thing. This means that is public comments supporting it were lies.

    Inquisitors (as far as I have seen) sincerely believed in a version of Christianity and tortured people to get them to agree to it.

    Ditto for atheists that tortured to get others to get them to be atheists.

    pplr | Aug 5, 2009 | Reply

  681. The amazing thing here is that you utterly fail to see the depth of the brainwashing you have undergone. You’re talking gibberish, as indeed you have from day one.

    You’re not going to convert anyone here. You’re not going to convince anyone that 1 + 1 = 3. You’re not going to look like anything but the demented idiot that you so very much are.

    So then, why are you here? Do you even know? I’ll bet you don’t. Go away, sad little man. You’re not wanted.

    bobby | Aug 5, 2009 | Reply

  682. No atheist has ever tortured anyone to get them to become an atheist. That’s entirely impossible. You could get someone to say it if you tried, but you can’t make them believe it, now can you? NO! You can’t! So your idiotic statement is meaningless.

    The laugh here is that an atheist would know this instinctively, but a Christian will swallow this codswallop of yours without a second thought, or indeed, without a first one even.

    bobby | Aug 5, 2009 | Reply

  683. Bobby, you can torture someone for almost any reason (atheism included) if you think it is an acceptable way to get them to agree with you.

    For everyone else, sorry about all the typos. I’ve been sacrificing rereading comments before I submit them for the sake of speed.

    As you can probably tell, when I don’t reread comments the typos can come pouring through.

    pplr | Aug 5, 2009 | Reply

  684. Your lack of critical thinking skills is showing yet again. Yes, you can torture a person and make them agree with you *outwardly*, but you cannot torture them into believing what you want them to believe.

    The word you’re looking for is brainwashing. Interesting that you don’t recognize it, could it be because it’s been done to you? Why, yes, I believe that to be the case.

    I think I can safely speak for others here when I say we don’t give a damn about your typos, the stupidity of your utterances is quite enough.

    bobby | Aug 5, 2009 | Reply

  685. On this matter of atheists killing in the name of atheism, let’s put this away once and for all. Consider China. Communist country, yes? The allow religious services. BUT – only as long as religion stays out of politics. Falun Gong is outlawed in China, indeed, they torture and incarcerate the leaders when the can, because while Falun Gong claims to be a religious group they actively seek the overthrow of the government.

    Same exact thing happened in Russia under Stalin. In later years he allowed religious services. Why? Because the church agreed to stay out of the business of politics. Where the church was perceived as a threat to the state persecution of the religious was deemed necessary. Therefore, atheism was the tool used to suppress the masses.

    I don’t know how much clearer that can be made. No one has killed in the name of atheism. They’ve killed theists when the church was deemed a threat to control, as indeed the church has always been, seeking as it does to achieve control for itself.

    bobby | Aug 5, 2009 | Reply

  686. @WWM: Thanks. lol. He keeps coming back with the same things, so I’m getting a lot of practice answering them.

    @pplr:
    No “personal god” is not “no God”.

    You are so funny when you’re jealous about smart people not believing in your woo. The irony here being while Einstein was alive, the GodSquad hated him. They wanted to kick him out of the country and send him back to Germany for not being one of them.

    I think maybe you should content yourself with Newton. I’m pretty sure he was a believer. I don’t think you can comprehend Einstein’s views.

    Hitler also said, in private, that he viewed Christianity as a bad thing. This means that is public comments supporting it were lies.

    Yeah, we already had this conversation, just like we’ve already had every other conversation coming out of your keyboard, Last Word Boy. What he believed in his head is irrelevant. What came out of his mouth as his justification was that he was a Catholic doing the lord’s work. Now please use a few brain cells here. Let’s assume for a moment that he really, truly did not believe a single word of his professed religion. Why did he say he did, and that he was doing the lord’s work? If he wasn’t saying it out of a sincerity in his heart that it was true, then there must have been another reason, right? Perhaps because it gave his cause legitimacy to say god was on his side? Just like the Catholic church was. *lightbulb*

    @Bobby:
    The word you’re looking for is brainwashing. Interesting that you don’t recognize it, could it be because it’s been done to you? Why, yes, I believe that to be the case.

    *ding, ding, ding* I think we have a winner, folks. You can use torture to get someone to say anything. To make them believe it, you need brainwashing.

    I don’t know how much clearer that can be made.

    I don’t think it can ever be made clear enough for him to understand it. He does a mental turtle defense when anything challenges the woo.

    Heidi | Aug 5, 2009 | Reply

  687. Turtle defence. I love it! It’s so appropriate, he’s slow in every sense of the word too! And I agree with WWM, your debating skills are excellent.

    bobby | Aug 5, 2009 | Reply

  688. Watch this.

    It explains religion in the context of North Korea starting at around minute 5:10. There is also the beginning of a rebuttal at the end, which I’m sure christians will appreciate. Presumably, the rebuttal finishes in the next segment of the video.

    Ann cited Kim Jong Il as an atheist leader. He is not. Kim Jong Il is a “god” on the level of Jesus. His father is still president of the country even though he died in 1994. Because Kim Il Sun is a god, and Kim Jong Il is also him. Sounds familiar.

    From wikipedia:
    Kim Jong-il’s official biography[6] states that he was born in a secret military camp on Baekdu Mountain (백두산) in northern Korea on 16 February 1942.[7] Official biographers claim that his birth at Baekdu Mountain was foretold by a swallow, and heralded by the appearance of a double rainbow over the mountain and a new star in the heavens.

    Very atheistic. Yeah. Amusingly, Soviet records say that he was born a year earlier, and in Vyatskoye, USSR.

    Heidi | Aug 5, 2009 | Reply

  689. LOL @ slow in every sense of the word.

    And Thanks. :-)

    Heidi | Aug 5, 2009 | Reply

  690. Ann is not going to be impressed, I’m like so shur! Her pastor/minister/lead dimwit has assured her he’s a godless commie and nothing more and that’s that!

    After all, she accuses me of approving of Stalin because I refuse to accept the dogma she’s been indoctrinated with, so she’s not going to believe anything that contradicts her “information”.

    bobby | Aug 5, 2009 | Reply

  691. Hmm… good point. I wonder what she’s going to say when he finally kicks off from the rumored pancreatic cancer and they have a trinity with Kim Jong Un?

    Heidi | Aug 5, 2009 | Reply

  692. @pplr: I’m an atheist who is more or less neutral on religion. ::shrugs:: Generally speaking, I don’t give a crap about whether you want to believe in fairies or not. I do, however, start caring when you start spouting things like “Jesus saves” while preventing me and mine from expressing similar sentiments. Or better yet, trying to convince me to convert to your air-worship. This is the biggest problem I have with religion, and it’s the one problem that’s not going to go away.

    You know, this has been explained so many times that I don’t understand why you still don’t get it. Atheist govts don’t kill or repress in the name of atheism. We don’t go around doing shiz and screaming “In the name of non-existence!” or anything similar. Theist govts, however, do. Consider the theocracy of Salemtown, which kicked off the Witch Trials that resulted in mass genocide of free-thinkers and women. That entire chapter of history cannot, in any way, be twisted to be flattering to Christianity.

    Your admission of the Bible’s flaws opens up a whole new can of worms. You are quite correct. If there is one flaw, there can be others. Like the existence of Jesus. Like miracles. Like every other freakin’ positive thing described in the Bible that you’re embracing like a lifeline, while tossing out that which displeases you. Selective reading isn’t a great thing, ya know.

    @Heidi: I had to lulz. You, ma’am, win an internets. I agree with WWM and bobby ::jumps on Heidi-wagon:: You’re awesome.

    Also, while we’re on the topic: There are a multitude of other religions, existing before Christianity and the story of Jesus, that share key features of it. Paganism, for example, lends a number of dates to Christianity. Easter, and its associated symbols of the egg, rabbit and chick, all stem from the neo-pagan celebration of Ostara. Likewise, Halloween originated from Samhain, the Wiccan new year. I truly, truly don’t understand why you Christians don’t understand it. Pagans had your dates. Your haloes originate from Egyptian sun disks. Heck, your Jesus’ life story is disturbingly similar to that of Horus’ (except for the fratricide of his brother, anyway. Jesus was an only child, woot).

    blufindr | Aug 5, 2009 | Reply

  693. @blufindr: Next time I’m out slaughtering, I’m going to shout “For Nothing and Country!” For real.

    And thank you. Do I pick up my prize from Al Gore, since he invented these internets?

    Horus was way cooler than Jesus. Bird-headed gods FTW!

    Christmas is Winter Solstice, Saturnalia and Sol Invictus rolled into one. And it has the added bonus of kissing under the druidic remedy for barrenness (mistletoe).

    Heidi | Aug 5, 2009 | Reply

  694. @Heidi: LOL! And we should all fight under an empty banner. You know. For lack of a deity.

    Yes, you should. Though, hurry. The internets, it r melting. Global warming affects us all, sometimes. :\

    blufindr | Aug 5, 2009 | Reply

  695. Mistletoe is poisonous. The berries in particular will cause severe gastric inflammation and bring on colitis. I’m not sure anyone has ever died of it, but I know from the ten years I spent in the flower industry that you always wash your hands after handling it and never let pets or children near it.

    As to the birthdate of the mythical Jesus I found this:

    Was Jesus born on December 25? There is no evidence for this date. So then, who decided that Jesus’ birth would be celebrated on that date? The early Christian church did not celebrate Jesus’ birth. It wasn’t until A.D. 440 that the church officially proclaimed December 25 as the birth of Christ. This was not based on any religious evidence but on a pagan feast. Saturnalia was a tradition inherited by the Roman pagans from an earlier Babylonian priesthood. December 25 was used as a celebration of the birthday of the sun god. It was observed near the winter solstice.

    That should blow some podling minds. It wasn’t until 440 years after he supposedly died that they stole the pagan celebrations date. And they have the gall to whine about people who don’t want anything to do with Jesus on that date. tsk, tsk.

    bobby | Aug 5, 2009 | Reply

  696. And people gave presents at Saturnalia. Mithras had a celebration around the same time, too. He was a sun god, so he had to show up for solstices.

    Also, from Jeremiah:
    10:1 Hear ye the word which the LORD speaketh unto you, O house of Israel:

    10:2 Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.

    10:3 For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.

    10:4 They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.

    10:5 They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.

    Oops, it said don’t chop down trees and decorate them. Ahem.

    _
    I don’t think the druids actually ingested the mistletoe, but then they’re all dead, so maybe they did. lol.

    Heidi | Aug 5, 2009 | Reply

  697. That was KJV, in case anyone was wondering. If you prefer New International:

    Jeremiah 10
    God and Idols
    1 Hear what the LORD says to you, O house of Israel. 2 This is what the LORD says:
    “Do not learn the ways of the nations
    or be terrified by signs in the sky,
    though the nations are terrified by them.

    3 For the customs of the peoples are worthless;
    they cut a tree out of the forest,
    and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel.

    4 They adorn it with silver and gold;
    they fasten it with hammer and nails
    so it will not totter.

    5 Like a scarecrow in a melon patch,
    their idols cannot speak;
    they must be carried
    because they cannot walk.
    Do not fear them;
    they can do no harm
    nor can they do any good.”

    Still can’t have those decorated trees.

    Heidi | Aug 5, 2009 | Reply

  698. Mistletoe isn’t deadly, it just contains visotoxins, which will simply make you wish you’d never been born for a few hours.

    I recall reading somewhere once that Jesus may have been fashioned after one of the Sun gods, but I can’t recall which one. There is circumstantial evidence that he represents the Sun’s transit through the horoscope. Note that he was said to have twelve disciples. There are twelve houses in a chart. Many theories, no proofs.

    bobby | Aug 5, 2009 | Reply

  699. Hey folks, have we claimed a scalp? ;-)

    bobby | Aug 5, 2009 | Reply

  700. Mithras was a Persian sun god who was very popular in Rome during the first few centuries CE. His birthday was December 25th ~600BCE. He had 12 disciples. He died, was buried in a tomb, and came back three days later. And his holy day was Sunday. Coincidence, right?

    Source:
    http://www.culturalvision.net/html/merry_mithras.html

    Heidi | Aug 5, 2009 | Reply

  701. I would like to pose a question:

    Is there any definable difference between faith and wishful thinking?

    bobby | Aug 5, 2009 | Reply

  702. Mithras, that’s the guy! Thank you. Yes, that’s the most sensible one I’ve heard for the origin of the Jesus story.

    So then, we might say that Jesus is – wait for it – a Mith!

    bobby | Aug 5, 2009 | Reply

  703. Just watched a video over on the Religion Is Man Made site. An Egyptian television clip with some wacko Imam calling for the murder of all members of the Ba’hai faith in Egypt, in particular an Imam who had converted to Ba’hai.

    Truly sick stuff. The Muslims are as bad as the Christians, but they’re more open about their desire to kill. The guy is shouting that the Quran says to kill anyone who converts from Islam to another religion, and yet every Muslim will tell you that Islam is the religion of peace.

    More of that theist logic I guess.

    bobby | Aug 5, 2009 | Reply

  704. Is there any definable difference between faith and wishful thinking?

    Not that I’ve noticed.

    So then, we might say that Jesus is – wait for it – a Mith!

    LOL.

    Heidi | Aug 5, 2009 | Reply

  705. Blufindr

    Atheism argues religion is superstition. If an atheist government kills or hurts people with the justification of ending superstition it is killing and hurting in the name of atheism.

    “atheism” as defined by http://www.onlinedictionary.com is “a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods” (definition 1) and “the doctrine or belief that there is no God” (definition 2)

    Claims that atheism is just definition 1 oversimplify and inappropriately don’t acknowledge definition 2. Like I said with ideas, terrible things can be done in the name of a “doctrine”.

    Heidi

    I watched the video of Hitchens v Wolpe (5 of 11)

    Around 4:30 Hitchens said something wrong. He claimed that slavery was religion based and was (everywhere it was/is) justified by holy books.

    Forced labor is a form of slavery and was used in communist Russia without holy books. Ditto for China. I’ll bet ditto for most (not all) sweatshops and sex slaves (people forced to be prostitutes).

    pplr | Aug 6, 2009 | Reply

  706. Claims that atheism is just definition 1 oversimplify and inappropriately don’t acknowledge definition 2. Like I said with ideas, terrible things can be done in the name of a “doctrine”.

    The difference being that definition 1 is what we actually believe, and definition 2 is what other people tell us we believe. Definition 2 is the one that oversimplifies.

    Around 4:30 Hitchens said something wrong.

    And…? That had nothing to do with my point. If you have a problem with what he said, write him a letter.

    Heidi | Aug 6, 2009 | Reply

  707. I can only speak for myself, but I for one don’t have a belief when it comes to the question of supernatural beings. What I have is a clear understanding that there is not one shred of proof for the existence of one, and therefore I live my life without regard to the belief that there is.

    People like pinhead here can’t grasp that concept at all. They would be completely lost without some authority telling them what to think and do, and so they need to believe that everyone has a belief system, that’s what’s going on.

    They need that crutch, I don’t.

    bobby | Aug 6, 2009 | Reply

  708. the doctrine that there is no god.

    How in the hell can simply acknoledgeing that there is no evidence that fairy tails are real be a doctrine?

    doctrine: a codification of beliefs or “a body of teachings” or “instructions”.

    Hello? Once again he uses words he completely fails to understand. That way he can kid himself that he’s got a valid point rather than simply spouting gibberish, which is all he’s done since he got here. Pathetic.

    bobby | Aug 6, 2009 | Reply

  709. Well it’s not convenient for him to understand the concept. He would if it supported his position, but it doesn’t so he’s all lalalalala-I-can’t-hear-yoooooouuuuu!

    That’s pretty much the reason that definition 2 exists. Because it’s convenient for people to assume it’s what we believe.

    Heidi | Aug 6, 2009 | Reply

  710. Just because someone knows how to put up a website doesn’t mean it’s all correct. Most of that information comes from a book that was written in the last couple hundred years and not very good as source material. Wikipedia gives a pretty good overview of things that are similar, and things that are not.

    All Christians know that December 25th is not the correct day, it was changed to let converted pagans still have the middle of winter holiday. Plants mentioned in the bible put actual birth in April or Oct.

    Thanks for the non-issue.

    But all these tangents help get you off the point– which is that atheists think they never commit the atrocious deeds that theists do.

    Thus, it’s OK to call Christians names, and prejudge them as an entire group.

    Ann | Aug 6, 2009 | Reply

  711. Actually, Ann, I think you’d be mentally deficient whether or not you were a Christian.

    No one here, not one single person, has said that no atheist has ever done anything wrong. You just wish that we’d said that, so you keep insisting it’s so. For the 947th time, the difference is that atheists don’t go around shouting, “in the name of no evidence, I sentence you to death!” or “Kill all the people with no evidence!” or “We must make this a nation of evidence!”

    Now, I realize that you and pplr aren’t bright enough to get that. I’ve come to terms with your insistence on ignorance. But no one here is going to agree with your incorrect point who hasn’t already. So why are you still yapping about it? Do you just like to hear yourself type?

    Btw, are you an expert on pagan customs and history, now? Because that’s going against what it says in the bible. “Learn not the way of the heathen.” You’re not supposed to learn about their ways. So if you’re a good little sheepling, then how do you know if wikipedia’s information is better than the other site’s? Are you violating your god’s commands? Ruh-roh!

    And anyway, there aren’t really any significant differences between the claims on the two sites. The first mention I made of Mithras was copied straight off wikipedia. Oh.

    But I do apologize for getting Mithras’s origin date wrong. He has actually been around since ~3000 BCE.

    Heidi | Aug 6, 2009 | Reply

  712. Oh look! It’s my favourite podling!

    Ah, so they LET pagans have something. Threw them a bone, did they? Then you admit that Christianity seeks to impose a totalitarian state, do you? Excellent. Now we’re getting somewhere!

    Tangents. Off the point. What point would that be, Ann? You’ve decided to set the agenda here, have you? Let me tell you what you can do with your little agenda, you mindless twit. You can take it and fold it to a sharp point and shove it up your ass.

    We’ve told you far too many times that if you can’t actually point to a group of people who held up an atheist flag and shouted “We kill in the name of not believing in a god!” then we have use for your demented twaddle.

    Go little god botherer, and bother some poor hapless Muslims or something. You’re still out of your depth and you’re drowning fast. And guess what, we’re not going to save you!

    And as for setting up websites that spread disinformation, I’m well aware. I’ve seen hundreds of them. They have names like The Church of Christ and Christianity Now. They make me nauseous.

    @Heidi

    Again, I for one don’t have any belief.

    bobby | Aug 6, 2009 | Reply

  713. Oh yeah, as for calling Christians names, it doesn’t matter if it’s okay or not, you don’t have any say in the matter, though I’m quite sure that’s your dream.

    bobby | Aug 6, 2009 | Reply

  714. @Heidi

    It makes them mithrable that Jesus was probably fashioned after Mithras. One can only imagine the mithery it brings them. I’m sure they want to believe it’s all a mithake, I mean, surely Jesus isn’t a mith!

    Hey Ann, pray tell, what exactly is the difference between faith and wishful thinking? Go on, I’ll wait.

    bobby | Aug 6, 2009 | Reply

  715. I do. I believe there’s no evidence. But if anybody shows up with some, I’ll take a look.

    Heidi | Aug 6, 2009 | Reply

  716. LOL. They’d rather the information went Mithing?

    Heidi | Aug 6, 2009 | Reply

  717. Perhaps its all a mithunderstanding? A mithfire? A mithcalculation? Let’s just file it under mithalleous, shall we?

    bobby | Aug 6, 2009 | Reply

  718. Damn. Make that mithellaneous

    bobby | Aug 6, 2009 | Reply

  719. I just knew there was something mithing…

    bobby | Aug 6, 2009 | Reply

  720. You know, Heidi, I must admit I’ve grown rather fond of our little podlings. They’re sort of like Irish Setters, you know? Enthusiastic but dumb. We throw the ball, they run and fetch. It’s fun.

    bobby | Aug 6, 2009 | Reply

  721. Heidi

    “The difference being that definition 1 is what we actually believe, and definition 2 is what other people tell us we believe. Definition 2 is the one that oversimplifies.”

    Members/Victims of cults/mind control organizations often claim they didn’t join one and it is just others saying/telling so. This doesn’t make their claims true either.

    I checked a dictionary (made by professionals) and since this was on paper it isn’t linkable. But the definition it gave was for “atheism” was “the belief that there is no God” That seems like only definition 2.

    Now you are claiming a dictionary is wrong because it highlights that intellectual and verbal acrobatics have taken you to a point that is absurd.

    The same online dictionary I used was one that you felt was credible enough to use yourself. It seems you change how credible you feel something is by if it is convenient for your ideology…. or doctrine.

    Also please reference where you first heard that atheism was not a belief. I’m not (yet) convinced you are the one who came up with this.

    pplr | Aug 6, 2009 | Reply

  722. Members/Victims of cults/mind control organizations often claim they didn’t join one and it is just others saying/telling so. This doesn’t make their claims true either.

    This is hysterical! A Christian comparing atheists to cults. Wow.

    Hey pinhead, do you know what the definition of insanity is? It’s doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. No, really.

    As has been explained to you, not believing something is not having a belief. That’s patently absurd. Doesn’t take any mental gymnastics to get there. If you look for evidence of something and find none, then you simply accept that there is no evidence of that thing being true. That’s not a belief! A belief is holding that something is true and having faith in it. Not the same thing at all! Really!

    YOU have a belief. WE have an opinion that your belief is horse shit! That’s all there is to it. You can put whatever label your tiny little mind wants on that, but calling it a belief is wrong. Dictionary be damned. Dictionaries can be wrong about many things. They aren’t always careful with semantics, everyone knows that. They’re purpose is to define words and cite their origins. The words the use for description are often murky.

    You are the one being absurd. You’re the one who believes in a book of badly written fairy tales, where do you get off throwing that claim at us? You’re an idiot.

    bobby | Aug 6, 2009 | Reply

  723. And again you use the word doctrine. You have no idea what it means, even though I told you. You’re just doing it to be annoying. Christians are like flies, they eat shit and bother people.

    bobby | Aug 6, 2009 | Reply

  724. @pplr: Cult members may not think they’re *in* a cult, but unless they’ve been lobotomized odds are they can define what one is. Analogy fail.

    Also please reference where you first heard that atheism was not a belief. I’m not (yet) convinced you are the one who came up with this.

    Wait, what? Of course I’m not the one who “came up with” the fact that atheism is not a belief. It just isn’t. Duh. I could probably find you a bunch of people who will also say it’s not a belief, but the first time I heard it? How am I supposed to remember the first time I heard it. When was the first time you heard that Christianity *was* a belief?

    You ask the weirdest questions. It’s like you string words together and then go “ta-da!” But you don’t bother to see if the words end up in a coherent concept. Bizarre.

    @Bobby: I am so glad I’m not the only one whose eyes went sproing when mind control boy compared atheism to a cult. Of course after the sproing I had to hold my sides laughing. Where does he come up with this crap, anti-logic school?

    Heidi | Aug 6, 2009 | Reply

  725. I’m finding it increasingly difficult to believe he’s merely bordering on retarded, I have to go back to the idea that he’s just making all this up to be a fly (see above). It may well be that he’s not even a Christian, he’s just having a big laugh at our expense. Could anyone really be this incredibly stupid?

    bobby | Aug 6, 2009 | Reply

  726. So you’re thinking he’s a Poe? You may be onto something. I always have trouble picking them out. It would explain a lot, though. Like the reason he just keeps repeating himself is that he thinks it’s funny. If he was real, he’d (probably) come to the conclusion eventually that we’re at a stalemate. I refuse to deny reality, and he refuses to see it. Nobody’s changing his/her mind here. So if he was real, what is there to accomplish? Why keep it up?

    The more I think about it, the more sense it makes. His co-defendants are going to be pissed if they find out he’s a Poe. lol.

    Heidi | Aug 6, 2009 | Reply

  727. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPg3kjKBRc

    It’s good. It’s very good.

    bobby | Aug 6, 2009 | Reply

  728. @pplr: You eat shit and bother people.
    Ain’t that a inferior way to act?
    Hypothesis: atheists are superior to
    Xians? A measure,how many atheists
    are in prison? Few. How many Xians are
    are in prison? Thousands! Durka durka
    we atheists are quite superior,yeeha!

    proud kuffar | Aug 6, 2009 | Reply

  729. Okay then. The forgoing commercial break was brought to you by Fed-Up Atheists For Less Crap From Christians.

    bobby | Aug 6, 2009 | Reply

  730. God sent Jawas!! Yay!!

    Which reminds me that the Jedi have a WAY cooler religion than anybody who is not in the Star Wars universe has.

    Heidi | Aug 6, 2009 | Reply

  731. I must admit that after listening to Yoda I quit using the word “try” whenever I said I was going to do something. Saying you’re going to try is a way of giving yourself an out. As Yoda says, “Do or do not, there is no try.” :-)

    bobby | Aug 6, 2009 | Reply

  732. Yoda’s the Man. Metaphorically speaking. Plus his woo works.

    Heidi | Aug 6, 2009 | Reply

  733. Heidi

    “Cult members may not think they’re *in* a cult, but unless they’ve been lobotomized odds are they can define what one is.”

    Not if it means defining what they joined as a cult/mind control organization, in that case emotion often fights reasoning. Moreover they are encouraged to define rivals/threats to the cult as bad and in a fashion that isn’t realistic. One example is attacking cultwatch groups as money grubbing (an irony coming from the a mind control group) and therefore untrustworthy (also an irony). As for you, you’d be working against emotionally comfortable doctrines/beliefs for yourself.

    ‘Of course I’m not the one who “came up with” the fact that atheism is not a belief. It just isn’t.’

    I see you still have issues with dictionaries. Doctrine more important than reality?

    “How am I supposed to remember the first time I heard it. When was the first time you heard that Christianity *was* a belief?”

    Guess. If you were raised that way say that. I knew by high school’s end what a “belief” was and wouldn’t have issues with it being defined as such on either a form or in a dictionary.

    pplr | Aug 7, 2009 | Reply

  734. Not if it means defining what they joined as a cult/mind control organization, in that case emotion often fights reasoning.

    I see that.

    Doctrine more important than reality?

    I see that, too.

    Guess. If you were raised that way say that.

    I already answered your question. If I didn’t choose the answer you wanted, that’s just too freaking bad, isn’t it? This is why you’re an asshole. You demand that I answer your carefully crafted “AHA!” question. And I do. And then you don’t LIKE the answer. That apparently pisses you off. So then you insist that I answer again “correctly,” by giving the answer you were looking for. WTF?

    Btw, you have yet to answer MY question that I have asked you numerous times. You know, the one about why you are still yapping when you know you’re not going to convince anyone of anything? To use your own tactic… Answer it! Answer it right now! Why are you so afraid to answer it? Won’t your mommy let you answer it? Answer the question pplr! Now! Answer it now! Don’t care for that tactic? Then you may see why I am disinclined to go out of my way to re-answer your question.

    I knew by high school’s end

    That is not the first time you ever heard it, though, is it? You can’t even answer your own question, FFS.

    @pplr: You eat shit and bother people.

    Quoted for truth.

    Heidi | Aug 7, 2009 | Reply

  735. Ok, here we go. By the time I read Sam Harris’s book, I knew that atheism was not a “belief.” I knew before that, too, but I’m patterning my answer on yours.

    Listen to this clip of someone reading from Letter to a Christian Nation for further explanation. You might not want to look, though. The narrator/video maker used images that will offend your delicate sensibilities.

    Heidi | Aug 7, 2009 | Reply

  736. So when Sam Harris has an opinion he can have issues with dictionaries as well. At least I see one of your sources of doctrine now.

    I also see that he has issues with free will-someone having the ability to chose to commit murder or not (though it would be better if more people choose not it is still a choice).

    “delicate sensibilities”, I’ve made it through your insults plus the rants of a bigot. Delicate? Not and be here.

    pplr | Aug 7, 2009 | Reply

  737. not and be here…?

    Hey Heidi, can you understand any of nimrod’s last two posts? For the life of me I can’t understand him any more. It’s just gibberish as far as I can tell. Maybe he’s smoking crack too. Notice neither one of the podlings speak to each other?

    I think this one is cracking under the strain. I’m with Sam Harris, Jesus may love him, but I think he’s a cunt.

    bobby | Aug 7, 2009 | Reply

  738. @pplr: Don’t put words in my mouth. I argue that religion is senseless. I also argue that superstition is senseless. But I do not argue that religion is mere superstition. Arguments of the form “If A is B, and C is B, then A is C” are useless. I dismantled them as a wee tot. Try again.

    I agree with Heidi on this one. Sorry, but definition 2 is the oversimplification here.

    The lack of a belief =/= a belief. If A is defined as the absence of B, A and B are mutually exclusive concepts. To then define A as a subset of B, is a logic gap. Capisce?

    Also, simply because it’s a dictionary definition, does not make it so. There are various colloquial, and official definitions for, say, “slut”. Doesn’t make any of them necessarily the only definition that fits. However, the logic loop that results when you try to define an absence of belief as a belief in itself, is mind-boggling.

    And yo. Your omniscient God doesn’t allow for free will in [h]is plan, either. Determinism. Learn it.

    @Ann: Actually, according to this, Jesus was born in May; , Jesus was born in April; and this, September.

    But wait! This reckons Jesus was born in June.

    Eesh, such epic discrepancy. Who knows, maybe Jebus [spelling intentional] really doesn’t exist.

    As has been stated in numerous sources throughout historical writings (including on Wikipedia), the dates in the Bible were changed to ease the changeover. In case you can’t read the highlighted section (or were too lazy to click):

    “Several Christian feasts occupy moments in the year that were formerly devoted to pagan celebrations [...] several edicts were given that instruct missionaries to attempt to absorb earlier traditions into Christianity so as to distract people from their pre-Christian gods”

    —-

    All my epistemology and logic classes in what is American sophomore year, all come in handy here. Dudes, seriously, thank you for putting my year of Philosophy to use.

    blufindr | Aug 7, 2009 | Reply

  739. Well, this has been a waste of time. I thought that reasonable people could see that above mentioned Christians were using Christianity as a tool for their insanity or whatever, and that it was not at all typical of Christians and shouldn’t be presented that way.

    I had the time to do it ’cause most of my family is away in a not too developed country helping folks get indoor plumbing who couldn’t afford it on their own, which is probably a horrible thing for Christians to do, too.

    But, alas. The reasonable people left this thread much earlier– atheists who mentioned that this propaganda wasn’t fair.

    At the base of it all Christian faith starts out as a bit of Pascal’s wager. But it’s the best wager I’ve ever enjoyed. My faith adds support, fun and meaning to my life. I hope your life choices do the same for you.

    Ann | Aug 7, 2009 | Reply

  740. blufindr–
    I hope you find some support. That med school goal is a great thing to work toward. Do you have any extended family that you could trust to be helpful?

    Just one note before I leave. We were all 17 once and we all thought we knew everything, but with life experience you start to learn new things. So be open to new things if what you are doing isn’t working for you. In my quiet times I know that there is someone who cares about me based on who I am, not for having to do anything for anyone else.

    Best Wishes!

    Ann | Aug 7, 2009 | Reply

  741. Eh, my HTML failed so epically in the last. :(

    Should have run it through a verifier, first.

    But y’all know what I meant. ;)

    blufindr | Aug 7, 2009 | Reply

  742. @Ann: We are aware that the views represented are extremists. However, the difference is in that religion has given them a tool to use for their hatred. Now, had religion had any basis in fact whatsoever, I highly doubt that Heidi, bobby and myself would have argued so vehemently against it. However, no irrefragable evidence has so far been exhibited. If you have some now, please, feel free to come forward. However, until then, I’m afraid I hold firmly to my view that religion does more general harm than good.

    I’d rather get down to hell, and see proof of it myself, before committing myself to any faith. Fine, let your faith bring you happiness. My own never has. And no, atheism doesn’t count as a form of faith. See former dismantling of this argument.

    I, quite frankly, despise most of my family. My extended family are so far extended, that I do not know of their existence.

    I’m quite willing to admit that I do not know everything. I’m also quite willing to admit that I do not have all my eggs in one basket. Some call it polyamory, I call it having backup plans. Either way, my partner and I have come to this arrangmenet together, and we’re both quite content with it. How’s that for trying new things?

    I also know there is someone “who cares about me based on who I am”. Mine, however, does not demand unquestionable obedience or oblivion.

    blufindr | Aug 7, 2009 | Reply

  743. So when Sam Harris has an opinion he can have issues with dictionaries as well.

    Translation: Everyone’s wrong but pplr.

    Poor pplr doesn’t understand that one definition is the one that most atheists use (most that I’ve hear discuss the matter, at least), and one definition is the one that podlings use to simplify everything down to “belief.” Except that’s how he uses them. It’s pretty sad.

    I also see that he has issues with free will-someone having the ability to chose to commit murder or not (though it would be better if more people choose not it is still a choice).

    And you are again holding me responsible for everything any other atheist says (while insisting that religion is not responsible for everything religious people do, even when it’s in the books, might I add). You may write Sam a letter, too.

    But bear in mind that most governments have a problem with free will by your definition, too. You are not, in fact, free to choose to murder someone. If you do it, you run the risk of imprisonment, or in some places execution. If human A sees human B attempting to commit a murder, odds are good that human A will try to stop it if it is within his/her power. Sometimes s/he will use physical intervention, sometimes s/he will call the authorities. If s/he doesn’t try to stop it, s/he can be held as an accessory to murder. And s/he will certainly be judged to have done the wrong thing, morally. Extrapolate. God, if he is there, does the wrong thing morally every day, over and over. He doesn’t so much as say “hey there little guy, maybe you want to take a time out and think about this?”

    Then again, this is the same god who supposedly created a fruit tree, left it with two people who didn’t know the difference between right and wrong, and said “don’t eat it.” And then he lied about why he didn’t want them to eat it. And when talking snake guy came along and told them that no, they really wouldn’t die from eating the fruit, they’d just get knowledge, he goes into a fury. Yeah, wouldn’t want those humans having any knowledge or they’d stop with the groveling.

    And I notice you’re still afraid to answer my question. Bock, bock, bock.

    __
    @pplr: Don’t put words in my mouth.

    Good luck with getting him to go along with that one. Lying for Jesus is all he’s got going for him.

    __
    it was not at all typical of Christians and shouldn’t be presented that way.

    It was not presented that way. If all christians went around acting like the people in the initial blog post, we would have been wiped out as a species by now. You may have also failed to notice that not everyone mentioned was a christian. All religions produce crazy people who go to extremes for their belief without evidence.

    which is probably a horrible thing for Christians to do, too

    It depends whether or not they have ulterior motives. If they are helping for the sake of helping, out of the goodness of their hearts, it’s a good thing. If they have an agenda to convert all these people, not so much.

    The reasonable people left this thread much earlier

    Translation: the people who agree with Ann.

    As for the wager bit, pretending to believe in an invisible being for which there is no evidence would most definitely not add meaning to my life. And if that same invisible being is the infanticidal monster depicted in the OT, then it would make me downright ashamed to worship him. Now if we’re talking gods in general, at least some of the others aren’t depicted as quite so evil. Still no meaning, though.

    In my quiet times I know that there is someone who cares about me based on who I am, not for having to do anything for anyone else.

    Condescension, prosetylization, hypocrisy, or all of the above? You decide. She doesn’t have to do anything for anyone else, other than her god. But her god demands she continually grovel at his feet, while shoving everyone else nearby down into the dirt to tremble with her.

    __
    I ask for so little. Just fear me, love me, do as I say and I will be your slave.
    -Jareth (the Goblin King), Labyrinth

    Heidi | Aug 7, 2009 | Reply

  744. Oh dear, Is Annie leaving us? Well, that will raise the I.Q. level in here. Yes, the condescention was pretty galling, eh? Wow. Having an imaginary friend makes her life worth living. That’s incredibly sad. Ah well, one down, one to go.

    bobby | Aug 7, 2009 | Reply

  745. Yeah, I didn’t (and don’t) want to speak speak for blufindr, but all of Ann’s “oh, you’re only 17, but when you grow up…” crap make my jaw clench. The girl’s 17, not 7. And she knows enough not to fall for the con game.

    Another thing atheists didn’t do:
    “July 29, 2009
    Supporters of “witch exorcist” Pastor Helen Akpabio* stormed the Calabar Cultural Center today with the intent of disrupting a child’s rights conference being sponsored by Stepping Stones Nigeria and the Nigerian Humanist Movement.”

    *misspelled – it’s actually Ukpabio

    The video shows footage of the actual event. Where is the outrage over this Ukpabio freak from the mainstream Christian community? Why don’t they speak up if they don’t condone her behavior? This is what I meant earlier when I said they legitimize the crazies. Silence may as well be assent.

    Now is the part where pplr says these people are doing it (Christianity) wrong, that he and his brand are superior and that I am a mean meany-head for pointing out this woman and her band of nutjobs.

    Heidi | Aug 7, 2009 | Reply

  746. And all the Muslims who maintain silence about terrorism and suicide bombings unless they’re prodded, in which case they tsk, tsk and insist that Islam is the religion of peace, despite the Koran being even more adamant about killing non-believers that refused to convert than the bible is about killing the unworthy.

    Religion is all about lies and hypocrisy. You have to be wearing blinders not to see that.

    bobby | Aug 7, 2009 | Reply

  747. Yeah, they are even worse. The high school teachers used to always try and sell that “religion of peace” bs to my daughter. Kids who didn’t buy into it were apparently just racist. Some people obviously *practice it* as a religion of peace, but that’s not what the books say. Huge difference between “there peaceful people who are muslims” and “islam is a religion of peace.”

    Look at Iran. The Supreme Ayatollah is batshit crazy, and ordering beat downs on the people for daring to want their votes to count. Not very peaceful, is he? The citizens who are largely moderates or non-religious are the peaceful ones. And, might I add, they put their lives in danger to speak out about it.

    Heidi | Aug 7, 2009 | Reply

  748. “But all these tangents help get you off the point– which is that atheists think they never commit the atrocious deeds that theists do.”

    when has anyone here said that atheists don’t do bad things? I believe everyone has agreed that there are bad atheists out there. The difference, as we have pointed out many times, is that atheists do not do the things spouting “in the name of the lack of belief I will kill you!” Atheists own up to being responsible for their own misdeeds, or claim insanity. Theists claim religion told them to. Do you have the pea sized brain that is required to understand this concept? I don’t think you do

    WWM | Aug 7, 2009 | Reply

  749. You know, I should start the “church” of atheism. Now wouldn’t that just send a shitstorm out of the theist community? Build a “temple” for people with no belief to come to, and demand I don’t need to pay taxes because it’s a “church”

    WWM | Aug 7, 2009 | Reply

  750. I use to work for a couple of Iranian guys, and I’ve know quite a few others. Lovely people. Most people think of them as Arabs, but it’s a completely different culture. It’s the cradle of civilization really, they were very advanced mathematicians and their artwork is extraordinary. It’s a damn shame that Islam got it’s hands around the throat of Iran. It was once a great country.

    bobby | Aug 7, 2009 | Reply

  751. Religious organizations not paying taxes is a crime. Full stop.

    bobby | Aug 7, 2009 | Reply

  752. Found this comic, laughed, felt it to be relevant.

    @Heidi: Tchar, it’s irritating, but I’ve learnt to dismiss condescension. Besides which, I’m fairly sure I’ve seen more shiz go down in my short life than she’s seen in hers.

    @WWM: Just let me know when you’re going to start. I’ll start an Australian chapter.

    blufindr | Aug 7, 2009 | Reply

  753. I agree on religious organizations not paying taxes being a crime. The catholic church is the biggest corporation in the world, and out of the billions they take, not one penny is taken out for taxes.

    and Blufindr, I’m sure you have seen more in your “short” life then ann has. I’m pretty sure I have in my 32 years. The majority of people who learn my background are shocked that I’m alive, sane, and that I’m still striving to move forward. I’m sure Ann’s story is rather tame compared to most people.

    WWM | Aug 7, 2009 | Reply

  754. This article, by Richard Gervais about his ‘conversion’ to atheism, just came up on StumbleUpon.

    blufindr | Aug 7, 2009 | Reply

  755. The Iranian university students are going to make a big difference, I think. I’ve been hearing things like “I don’t even know anyone who practices their religion.”

    They’re seriously brave people. I’ve also read several students say things like “I don’t know if I’m going to live though the demonstration, so I called my family to say goodbye.” That kind of thing really chokes me up, especially since these people are maybe 20 years old.

    Religious organizations not paying taxes is a crime. Full stop.

    Absolutely.

    Heidi | Aug 8, 2009 | Reply

  756. That was a great story, blufindr. Thanks for linking it.

    Heidi | Aug 8, 2009 | Reply

  757. Very good story blufindr.

    and heidi, I must say the Iranian students you mentioned are a very sad story… Though if I was there I would probably be one of them.

    WWM | Aug 8, 2009 | Reply

  758. I’ve gotten most of my information on the Iran situation from the Tehran Bureau website. If you’re interested in reading about what’s going on over there, it’s a great resource.

    Heidi | Aug 8, 2009 | Reply

  759. Blufindr

    “Determinism. Learn it.”

    Already know about it. Few Christians follow/are believers in that doctrine. Even when our choices are limited depending on the situation there are still choices.

    Also if you really want to fight hate that would be a good thing. But you have been putting comments alongside a bigot here and have yet (if I missed it please point it out) to draw a line where you feel he is different from yourself. Note when Ann talked about gay people I did so.

    Heidi

    “And you are again holding me responsible for everything any other atheist says (while insisting that religion is not responsible for everything religious people do, even when it’s in the books, might I add).”

    My comment was:
    “I also see that he has issues with free will-someone having the ability to chose to commit murder or not (though it would be better if more people choose not it is still a choice).”

    That doesn’t hold you responsible for what he wrote, or anything another atheist does for that matter. If you decide to defend him and the actions of all other atheists that is something you are choosing and I would say you should not unless you want to. Besides neither he nor any atheist who has done bad or horrible things (referring to discrimination or crimes against humanity) needs, or even should have, you defending them.

    pplr | Aug 8, 2009 | Reply

  760. If you weren’t challenging me to defend it, then why bring it up? Do you just like to type irrelevant things?

    Also, you still haven’t answered my question.

    Heidi | Aug 8, 2009 | Reply

  761. I was criticizing what he said.

    Rather than a challenge for you to defend him I would hope you would consider distancing yourself from him.

    What question is that? (Haven’t finished reading through all the comments made-and I have been breezing through a few that I did.)

    pplr | Aug 8, 2009 | Reply

  762. @pplr: Actually, there is a huge logic loop in God possessing infinite knowledge, and having free will. Unless you’re copping to there being lots of different universes, which are created every time someone makes a choice. In which case, we’re crossing over into other, more arcane territory.

    I don’t draw lines between bobby and myself, because I believe neither of us are bigots. Until there is absolute proof that there is even an iota of truth in religion, we will not believe in an incorporeal super haxx0r. Until there are people who do not use religion as a tool to kill and maim, we will not believe in its supposed healing powers. Understood?

    Oh, and don’t bring up the Stalin argument again. It’s been tested, it’s been measured, it’s been found wanting. Bring some new things to the game (we’ve brought plenty of religion-is-a-corruptive-force-type cases to the table), or don’t bother using that argument. We don’t kill in the name of disbelief. Capisce?

    blufindr | Aug 8, 2009 | Reply

  763. Blufindr

    If you look at my posts I repeated pointed to more (including people and ideologies) than Stalin.

    Bobby is a bigot by most measures. If you look at the remarks and continual insults he sends at a group of people they match those of a bigot. It you insert the word “black person” into much of what he said it would be clear evidence of racism. Also he even admitted being a bigot, not that this admission of his is the main source of evidence he is a bigot. But he is one.

    What God knows doesn’t stop anyone from making decisions on his/her own. Many a Christian would attest to this.

    pplr | Aug 8, 2009 | Reply

  764. @pplr: Are you talking about me? I was just reading about the persecution of Madlyn Murray
    Ohair. Three years of bitter persecution in
    Baltimore MD not once did any christian of
    stature speak against this! You mainline
    christians are enablers and endorsers of
    coldly deliberate villainy! I don’t like
    you! NO,I DON’T LIKE YOU AT ALL!

    proud kuffar | Aug 8, 2009 | Reply

  765. @pplr: He’s frustrated. Fine, fine difference.

    Now, re: choices. Let’s say I starved you for a few days, giving you water and water only for nearly a week (because you’d die faster without water than you would without food). Then I came into your dungeon-like enclosure, and left you with a bucket of food and a bucket of pig plop, and told you to pick only one, you’d pick the food, right? Most people would.

    Say I was a real sadist. Say I knew you were going to pick the food (unless your starvation rendered you clinically mad). Say I also told you that you had to pick and consume one bucket, must do so to prolong your own life, and that choosing the food would result in a permanent disability (because I sawed off your legs or something). Say you picked the food anyway. What right have I then, to punish you? What right have I, to make you suffer for a choice I knew you were going to make?

    Yet, this kind of psychopathic behaviour is tolerated by you Christians. You pander to your God, maintaining that he knows all (ostensibly, also things that have yet to happen). You then add a further stipulation that unless we comply with a series of rules, we will all suffer eternal torment. Yet, you also tell us that your God is all-loving. Now, what kind of monster would:
    a) punish us for acts he knew was going to be performed.
    b) demand unwavering allegiance and acceptance.
    c) tell us we have to beg for forgiveness, before we can be absolved of the sins he knew we were going to take.
    ?

    Tell me, because none of this really makes sense to me. Argument by degree seems to be a great favourite amongst you theists; yet, infinite problems abound.

    blufindr | Aug 8, 2009 | Reply

  766. blufindr– I meant new to you, not new to society.

    For you polyamory is just one more step of people using a vulnerable 17yr old, and a less than effective way to get people to care about you. At least you have these blogs where like-minded people appreciate your ideas, so that’s good.

    For your bf polyamory is “this just keeps getting better.”

    At some level, people with BDD generally feel overexposed, let me know how the polyamory is helping w/ that.

    Ann | Aug 8, 2009 | Reply

  767. I’ve seen him attack you, and other people who have been on this board making fools of themselves. I have yet to see him make any comments that would be against theists as a group other then things along the lines of “all theists are blinded and willfully ignorant.”

    Just because he rips you apart for trying to shove your horse shit down everyone’s throats doesn’t mean he’s a bigot, it just means he won’t accept having your horseshit shoved down his mouth.

    WWM | Aug 8, 2009 | Reply

  768. oops, forgot the quote for the last post.

    “Bobby is a bigot by most measures. If you look at the remarks and continual insults he sends at a group of people they match those of a bigot.”

    that is what I’m replying to above

    WWM | Aug 8, 2009 | Reply

  769. @pplr
    Rather than a challenge for you to defend him I would hope you would consider distancing yourself from him.

    From Sam Harris?? Why?

    What question is that? (Haven’t finished reading through all the comments made-and I have been breezing through a few that I did.)

    Ah, well that explains why you didn’t see the question, even though I’ve asked it at least five times. My question is, what do you hope to accomplish here? You’re not going to convert anyone. You’re actively reinforcing the “pushy Christian who won’t get out of other people’s faces” stereotype. So what is your goal here? Do you just want to argue forever or until we get bored? I’m honestly wondering this.

    @Ann
    For you polyamory is just one more step of people using a vulnerable 17yr old, and a less than effective way to get people to care about you. At least you have these blogs where like-minded people appreciate your ideas, so that’s good.

    For your bf polyamory is “this just keeps getting better.”

    I don’t think you can generalize like that. I’ve known people who have been perfectly happy in poly relationships. *I* wouldn’t be, but it does happen.

    Also, how do you know that she’s being taken advantage of, or that her bf is more in favor of it than she is? Gender stereotypes?

    You may well be right on all counts with this, but you probably shouldn’t assume.

    @WWMI’ve seen him attack you, and other people who have been on this board making fools of themselves. I have yet to see him make any comments that would be against theists as a group other then things along the lines of “all theists are blinded and willfully ignorant.”

    I’m going to have to agree on this. Perhaps pplr could provide some quotes of Bobby’s that he thinks are bigoted?

    Heidi | Aug 8, 2009 | Reply

  770. My, my, but you guys are busy today! What’s Ann doing here? She keeps saying she’s leaving! She’s addicted, I tell you! lol.

    I see Purple People eater is after me again. I was waiting for that. He’s pissed off that I agreed with Sam Harris about the difference between what Jesus thinks of him and what I think. The funny part is that Sam and I are real and Jesus is just his imaginary friend.

    Oh well. He can call me anything he likes. What he fails to understand is that the opinions of tiny minded assholes fail to impress me.

    @Ann

    Now Ann, really, your patronizing comments to blufindr are truly disgusting. It’s not bad enough that you’re a Christian Libertarian, whatever the hell that is, you’re the only person I’ve ever encountered that would claim to be such a nonsensical being, but anyway, adding condescention to the mix is really just too much.

    bobby | Aug 8, 2009 | Reply

  771. @Heidi

    Now Heidi, how can you be surprised that Ann would think it just keeps getting better as far as the bf is concerned? You KNOW that god created woman from the rib of man, and that women are on this earth to serve men! You KNOW it’s true! lol.

    bobby | Aug 8, 2009 | Reply

  772. Don’t you guys just love the divide and conquer tactics pplr is trying? He’s convinced he’s so much smarter than we are, and thus easy to manipulate. What a moron.

    bobby | Aug 8, 2009 | Reply

  773. No, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised at all. All women hate sex and all men are animals, right?

    Sam didn’t actually make the video, though. It was just somebody reading from one of his books. Somebody who appears to have had more than enough of the religion pushers.

    Heidi | Aug 8, 2009 | Reply

  774. @Ann: ‘Scuse me while I laugh. Vulnerable? Please. I’m polyamorous because I choose to be — all parties were ignorant of each other until fairly recently, so no, they’re not using me. Rather, I am using them to fulfil my almost pathological need for affection. It’s a mutually beneficial arrangement. Don’t patronize me.

    And actually, my primary is okay with my polyamory — provided he knows of it prior. If he were truly comfortable with it, if it “keeps getting better” for him, then why would he stipulate to me that I must discuss it with him before jumping headlong into other relationships?

    blufindr | Aug 8, 2009 | Reply

  775. Oh my. I know what’s she’s going to say to that in answer to that last part…

    bobby | Aug 8, 2009 | Reply

  776. Oh my. I know what’s she’s going to say to that in answer to that last part…

    Hopefully it doesn’t involve Latin and magic water.

    Heidi | Aug 8, 2009 | Reply

  777. lol. No, but it will be just as stupid.

    bobby | Aug 8, 2009 | Reply

  778. Blufindr, you know you’re being taken advantage of. Your bf manipulated you psychicly to make you find your other partner(s) just so he could work on getting a 3some going. after all, if all the christian woo works, psychic stuff must work too :P

    WWM | Aug 8, 2009 | Reply

  779. See, I knew you’d know what the response would be. Men think differently. ;-)

    bobby | Aug 8, 2009 | Reply

  780. @WWM: LOL! We’ll see. :P

    blufindr | Aug 8, 2009 | Reply

  781. Just found a great quote by Isaac Asimov

    “Creationists make it sound as though a ‘theory’ is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night”

    WWM | Aug 8, 2009 | Reply

  782. I love that quote. Asimov was awesome.

    I also like this Nova page with clips of scientists explaining what science is. Notice the only one talking about meaning and purpose is the biologist.

    Heidi | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

  783. Heidi

    I never said I was here to convert anyone to a religion. What I would like to do now is get some of you to think stuff over and, while being atheists, drop what appears to be some biases that are far from rational and are, if anything, opinion based.

    About Mr. Harris, I just pointed out a couple problems with his reasoning after hearing only a short clip of it. Looked into him more and found that he has been criticized, including by a fellow atheist for being an agent on intolerance.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_(author)
    Under the title: Criticism and debate

    “Madeleine Bunting quotes Harris in saying “some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them,” and states “[t]his sounds like exactly the kind of argument put forward by those who ran the Inquisition.”[34] Quoting the same passage, theologian Catherine Keller asks, “[c]ould there be a more dangerous proposition than that?” and argues that the “anti-tolerance” it represents would “dismantle” the Jeffersonian wall between church and state.”

    Blufindr

    Frustrated is pretty far from what he has been doing. Anger and irrationality can be involved in both but one is acting out in a moment or day of frustration. Bobby acted much longer and as part of a deeper pattern.

    About the whole spending forever in torment and so on. This very much depends on the type of Christian and the doctrine he/she follows-not every Christian does. And you didn’t know this. My guess is that you have been told a bunch of terrible things about Christians and could use talking over stuff with one before buying into the worst possible idea presented to you about what each believes.

    pplr | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

  784. So now you think you know me? This just gets better and better. Listen, if Sam Harris ever did start offing your ilk, I would sincerely hope he would start with you. The pity is that it will never happen.

    Fantasize as you will, imbecile, but Sam Harris will never wallow in the pit you’re in.

    bobby | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

  785. I never said I was here to convert anyone to a religion.

    No, you never gave any reason why you were here, and frankly I assumed it was because you enjoy being an irritant.

    Looked into him more and found that he has been criticized,

    Who hasn’t?

    Madeleine Bunting

    Is, AFAICT, a lunatic. And she uses the term “New Atheist.” According to one of the comments on her Guardian article, it looks like she may have even coined it. So she’s going on my idiot list. Never heard of her before, but I think it’s best that I stop reading her Guardian blog posts. Jaw is clenching.

    Obviously I’ll be taking Catherine the theologian’s opinion with a grain of salt.

    FTR…

    Harris has said in response that the passage has been misconstrued. Specifically, he says that “[s]ome critics have interpreted the second sentence of this passage to mean that I advocate simply killing religious people for their beliefs. . . . I am not at all ignoring the link between belief and behavior. The fact that belief determines behavior is what makes certain beliefs so dangerous.”[36]

    Full Text of Sam’s response to the criticisms is available on his site. (see link)

    Oh.

    If you don’t feel like clicking the link, when he was talking about killing people, he was referring to people like bin Laden. Would you prefer rehab for bin Laden? It’s working well for Charlie Manson, right?

    Anyway I guess we’ve got nothing else to talk about, because I’m on Sam’s side with the majority of what I’ve actually read of his work. (I’ve read End of Faith, but not Letter.) So it’s probably time for you to file me in the militant category and write me off as a loss.

    Heidi | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

  786. @pplr: You mean to say that you can still make the jump from hell back to heaven, and vice versa? Wow, so the afterlife is really just like regular life? How… redundant.

    As for doctrine: If a version of Christianity has specified anywhere that hell is an impermanent state of being, I’d like to see it.

    blufindr | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

  787. Russell’s Teapot pegs it again.

    blufindr | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

  788. Yeah, that pretty much says it all, doesn’t it?

    Heidi | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

  789. That has got to be the best comic I’ve ever read. Nails it

    WWM | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

  790. Blufindr

    I think you misunderstood what I said. I was talking about the idea that all Christians believe everyone has to be a Christian in order to get to heaven.

    About Bobby, this is something he just said:

    “So now you think you know me? This just gets better and better. Listen, if Sam Harris ever did start offing your ilk, I would sincerely hope he would start with you. The pity is that it will never happen.”

    To me it just more proof he is a bigot. But you should write it down and take it to other GSA members. As them if it is “hate speech” and sounds like something a bigot would say. If they want to see the rest of the discussion fine but get their opinion on this without Heidi, Bobby, me, WMM, Ann, or anyone else here.

    Heidi

    “No, you never gave any reason why you were here, and frankly I assumed it was because you enjoy being an irritant.”

    Not only did I say a couple of times why I first came here but you are assuming.

    If you want to kill people for what they think you’re acting as thought police rather than actual police who punish people for actual actions. Big and relevant difference between thoughts and actions. Also he is using the actions of a few to attack many-blaming people for things they didn’t having any hand in doing or even approving of isn’t logical.

    pplr | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

  791. Yes, blufindr, by all means, go ask some people who couldn’t care less a leading question entirely out of context and see what answer you get. That’s a very religious way of doing things.

    Great cartoon, btw. Nails it perfectly. While you’re asking questions, ask butthead what he thinks of it.

    bobby | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

  792. you are assuming

    Yes, I believe I said that.

    frankly I assumed

    Why look, yes I did.

    Also he is using the actions of a few to attack many-blaming people for things they didn’t having any hand in doing or even approving of isn’t logical.

    Obviously you only read what the critics wish he had said, and not what he actually said. Friends of yours, are they? They use the same tactics you use. When he’s not quoted out of context, he says:

    The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and to innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas.

    Oh.

    Heidi | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

  793. To me it just more proof he is a bigot. But you should write it down and take it to other GSA members. As them if it is “hate speech” and sounds like something a bigot would say. If they want to see the rest of the discussion fine but get their opinion on this without Heidi, Bobby, me, WMM, Ann, or anyone else here.

    Divide and conquer, eh?

    Personally, I translated his statement as “you are an ass.” My daughter was a GSA officer, btw.

    Heidi | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

  794. THIS is what’s he’s using to paint Harris as someone who wants to kill theists? Well, ffs, no wonder he calls me a bigot and says I have an emotional disability (both case of severe projection, btw), he’s just going around looking for ways to paint atheists as evil and with his lack of intellectual fire power he come up with crap like that.

    Keep going dufus, the more you spew the stupider you look.

    bobby | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

  795. @Heidi

    Your comment about agreeing with *most* of Harris says is very telling. That’s a key difference between atheists and our two resident imbeciles, atheists engage in critical thinking, the podlings swallow whole whatever dogma they’re force fed and then twist and turn trying to defend it against logic and reason.

    bobby | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

  796. THIS is what’s he’s using to paint Harris as someone who wants to kill theists?

    Yup. Except he only read the cherry picked sentence that crazy Madeleine and Catherine the theologist deliberately (IMO) misinterpreted.

    Your comment about agreeing with *most* of Harris says is very telling.

    Yeah, I don’t think I agree with all of what anybody says about anything. But I definitely agree with most of what The Four Horsemen (Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens and Dennett) say about religion and reason. They don’t agree with each other on everything, either. You can see some of their Four Horsemen talks on You Tube. Interesting stuff. Also, I love the name Four Horsemen. lol.

    Heidi | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

  797. Imagine there are no theists,
    it’s pretty hard to do.
    maybe some day they’ll go away,
    or someone will off a few…

    That should send him into a frenzy…

    bobby | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

  798. I nominate Chapman to head the getting offed queue. He was a tract-bearing fundie asshat who resented Lennon’s lack of belief. I’m still pissed off at that guy, and I was only 10 when he assassinated Lennon.

    Heidi | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

  799. Asshat. I like it! I was going to say in my last post that I’m pretty sure purple people eater wears his underpants on his head.

    bobby | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

  800. I wish I knew how to quit you, bobby. JK.

    Heidi, I think Chapman was more motivated by Catcher in the Rye. Actually, now that I think about it there have been quite a few murders associated with those subversive ideas.

    That’s it! I’m starting a blog about all the horrible things Catcher in the Rye ideas have inspired and that fans of that book are intellectually inferior. When I see someone reading Catcher in the Rye I just want to scream that they’re an idiot and brainwashed. All smart people are Silas Marner fans.

    Ann | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

  801. Face it Ann, you’re a fool for bad boys. It’s that whole forbidden fruit thing. No, really.

    Catcher in the Rye is a brilliant piece of literature, so calling fans of the book idiots would be misguided. Though I can see how Christians might not like it, Onanism and all that. Now, the bible, on the other hand is nothing more than a hodgepodge of borrowed fables, exhortations to commit vile acts and a peon to a demented imaginary being with a huge inferiority complex.

    There are second rate science fiction novels that do all that so much better.

    bobby | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

  802. But people do awful things because of Catcher in the Rye’s ideas. It’s a virus, it must be wiped out.

    Gosh, bobby, am I that bad at satire?

    Ann | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

  803. Oh, I got it, it just doesn’t make any sense. I haven’t heard anyone say we need to ban the bible. People are responsible for their actions whether they’re influenced/brainwashed by books or things they’re told.

    I’ve consistently said exactly that. I’m not an advocate for book burning/movie banning and never have been, that’s for theists and over blue noses.

    bobby | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

  804. Damn. That’s other, not over. Though come to think of it, over works too. Whatever.

    bobby | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

  805. I believe at one point awhile back I mentioned that Alan Watts said in one of his books that it might be a good idea to lock the bible away for a hundred years so that it could be viewed with fresh eyes and perhaps then it wouldn’t inspire the insanity it has, but that’s not advocating book banning by myself, and I don’t believe Watts actually meant that it should happen, I think he was just trying to illustrate the point that the bible has inspired a lot of demented behaviour down the years and continues to do so.

    bobby | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

  806. In that regard, I highly recommend the book I mentioned. It’s called The Book: On The Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are.

    He makes reference to human beings as tubes in which things go in one end and out the other. It’s where the band The Tubes got their name. Just a little rock ‘n roll trivia…

    bobby | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

  807. Not familiar w/ blue noses.

    Ann | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

  808. Heidi, I think Chapman was more motivated by Catcher in the Rye.

    Trust me on this one. I’ve done a LOT of Lennon research. Chapman did totally over-identify with Holden Caulfield, but his main motivations for going after John Lennon specifically were a) John was more accessible than Paul, and b) John was the one who said the Beatles were more popular than Jesus. Which was true, but it pissed Chapman right the hell off.

    Personally, I hated Catcher in the Rye.

    Heidi | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

  809. Oh great. Now that Tubes song is stuck in my head, complete with overplayed video. lol.

    Heidi | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

  810. Heidi,

    FAIL, it was actually c.) mental illness.

    Hey, did you hear? bobby was on here recommending a book advocating a Buddhist book. You should start calling him names, quick.

    Ann | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

  811. Which one? One In A Million Girls? She’ll give you every penny’s worth, but it will cost you a dollar first! That was a great song. I once made a delivery to Fee Waybill at their hangout. They’re San Francisco boys. What a strange place that was, as you can imagine.

    @Ann

    Not familiar with blue noses? Oh, I’ll bet your church is lousy with them. Blue nose is a slang term for people with hangups about sexual activity. Specifically, activity that they themselves wouldn’t engage in, so they see no reason anyone else should be allowed either.

    bobby | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

  812. Oh my. Ann did a quick look-up on Alan Watts and got a completely wrong impression and couldn’t wait to nail me with it. I knew that would happen. Watts was a philosopher specializing in Eastern philosophy, Ann. He advocated no religious beliefs and was, I believe, an atheist. He did write about Buddhism, philosophical, not religious, but mostly he focused on Taoism, and not religious Taoism, he had no time for that. That’s merely a bastardization of Taoist thought, which, incidentally, holds that there is no god.

    bobby | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

  813. Oh, thx.

    Ann | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

  814. Ann, I feel like you have a strong prejudice against mentally ill people. Is this like homophobia where it’s too close to home?

    Btw, I like Buddhism. They don’t have gods, which is always a plus. It’s almost not a religion, IMO. I’m not fond of the woo parts, but the Yoda-tastic philosophy bits are good, and I really like the Dalai Lama. Someone I knew met him in person once.

    Bobby, yep, that’s the one. It’s up there with Wrapped Around Your Finger as one of the videos I saw 945 million times. lol.

    Heidi | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

  815. Yeah, it’s great satire. And every guy who’s been in one of those booths, um, whoever they might be, can relate to the words of that song.

    Buddhists have many gods, but they don’t actually believe such beings exist, they’re personifications of concepts, there to aid understanding, unlike Christians and Muslims who insist on thinking their magical beings are real.

    bobby | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

  816. Heidi,
    So Chapman wasn’t crazy? Or are you just going on one of your fun tangents again?

    Ann | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

  817. Tangents? Of all the people who have posted here, I don’t think there’s anyone who’s more on topic all the time than Heidi, with the possible exception of WWM.

    bobby | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

  818. BTW, bobby, that wasn’t very nice what you said about people in my church, you don’t even know them and there are some really cool people there.

    George is an old Jamaican man who always has a wink and a smile for me and is obsessive about us keeping the building clean.

    Rosemarie is a big Brazilian woman who gives the kids candy so they swarm her when she walks around.

    Steve is a young father, who is not the brightest bulb in the pack, but always willing to help someone move if they need to.

    It’s a very nurturing, awesome community. You should try it sometime. You might find people you actually like.

    Oh wait, at least you have Heidi.

    Ann | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

  819. Well it’s funny you should bring that issue up, Ann. First, I wasn’t assuming anything about any particular church, I was simply saying that churches are a place one very often finds blue noses. I stand by that assessment based on personal and anecdotal experience. I’d bet money your church is no exception.

    It wasn’t about being nice or not nice or whatever, simply a statement of fact.

    Now then, let me tell you why I became a non-believer originally. I used to get dragged to church when I was young by my parents, who weren’t real believers, it’s just that my father was raised by a mother who was an AOG convert from a very early age and he felt an obligation to expose his children to religion for that reason.

    When I was 15, back in the long, long ago, I worked part time as a janitor at said church. One day after a rousing sermon by the hip, with it young minister about fellowship and loving thy neighbour and all that I stood out in the foyer waiting for a phone call and I began listening in on the conversations of the congregation who were socializing after the service.

    What I was hearing was, well, an eye-opener, for lack of a better term. Every last one of those good, god-fearing Christians was gossiping about people they knew. Some of said people standing not far away. In short, they were bad mouthing their fellow Christians and anyone else they felt like bad mouthing.

    In other words, Ann, they were hypocrites. They sat there in those pews and nodded their heads righteously during the sermon, then they left and did exactly the opposite.

    That was it for me. My eyes were opened. I saw the light, Ann. Religion was one big crock of horse shit. I began looking into these matter further, and guess what? I was right.

    So that’s how I lost my religion. By opening my eyes, and indeed, my ears. Try it some time. See what’s really going on instead of what you think is going on. It’s a real…eye opener.

    bobby | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

  820. And as for finding people I actually like, well yes, there really aren’t very many of those. I have a high functioning bullshit detector and I don’t suffer fools gladly, so I limit the number of people I associate with on a regular basis. I like it that way.

    bobby | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

  821. bobby, you’re right, that sucks when people are like that. Still don’t agree with you on where you went with it. I’m pretty connected at my church and there are hypocrites and annoying people there, but also really cool down to earth people.

    Whatever. Best Wishes.

    Ann | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

  822. You don’t agree that my observations should have been a catalyst to take a closer look at what I was being taught in church? See, I just don’t understand that. It was a perfectly logical thing to do. And my reason for discontinuing belief was what I discovered along the way, not the catalyst that got me to thinking and wondering.

    This is why I think believers are people who have no qualms about turning a blind eye to the logical inconsistencies and lack of evidence for what they choose to believe. They have other reasons for believing. They do it in spite of the evidence. I find that for many people it’s just a social club in drag, and they tell themselves they believe in order to get what they want out the situation.

    To each his own, but when I’m told I’m wrong about what I can clearly see with my own eyes, then it gets ugly, as purple people eater has discovered, much to his dismay.

    bobby | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

  823. @pplr: So, you have to be a Christian, and have unwavering faith in the fairy, and live life according to the (contradictory) laws set out in the Bible? Looks like none of us are going to heaven.

    Oh, and FYI: Every religion has its own set of criteria for an afterlife. Some don’t even consider the possibility of an afterlife. Only one can be right. There is equal, negligible proof for all these religions. What makes yours more accurate than these others?

    @Ann: You completely dismissed all my arguments, re: polyamory. What’s the matter? Unable to counter it from your hoity-toity, holier-than-thou seat?

    Also, Buddhism is a way of life, not a religion per se. Which is why Buddhist temples still pay tax. It teaches us to reach enlightenment by first embracing inner peace. Now, compare and contrast to the “stone all sinners” regime of Christians…

    Your argumentum ad populum about the lack of openly blue-nose parishioners at your church, does not in any way refute bobby’s point: That religion is, frankly, an illogical miasmic conglomerate of other folklore, which is worshipped by hypocrites.

    blufindr | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

  824. Bravo, blufindr! That last bit after the colon, wow. Your age belies your intellectual prowess, young lady. That is a very eloquent sentence. Being a writer I am qualified to say as much, I might add, it’s not hollow flattery. I am well and truly impressed. And more than a bit jealous. ;-)

    Are you available as a tutor? lol. Anyway, you go girl. Well done.

    bobby | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

  825. Well, Ann, Chapman was found competent to stand trial. He rejected the insanity plea and plead guilty to 2nd degree murder. And he has since said that what he did was wrong. So I guess it depends on your definition of crazy. My heart says that anyone who takes the life of another human being is crazy. But the law disagrees.

    What I didn’t know until right this minute (thank you for making me go double check my facts) was that born again boy went to (and dropped out of) an evangelical college on Lookout Mountain in Georgia. Let me tell you about Lookout Mountain. My mom went to a school there. I don’t think it was the same one, Because Mom’s family was SDA. But she’s dead so I can’t ask her. The people in that area are batshit crazy, so that may well be where he went over the edge. My mom has told me so many horror stories about the fundie school where she went… stories full of child labor and brainwashing. She called it a cult. And guess what? You know all those Branch Davidians from Waco? The ones who died in the fire with David Koresh? My mom knew the older ones. Because they went to school with her on Lookout Mountain in Georgia. I watched that news breaking with her, and she kept saying that they had been such nice people when she’d gone to school with them. Nice people who apparently didn’t have any qualms about burning little children inside an underground bus, though, IIRC.

    Now, about all those nice people at your church, Ann. Do they have the problem where they can’t legally express their gay bashing beliefs because of those awful hate speech laws, too? Or are they like my army-brainwashed friend, Joe, who writes things on his Facebook page like “I am afraid of the ACLU.” Or are they like my online friend Christy who says things like “of course Obama wants mothers to go back to school. He wants to destroy families.” I think I’m at full capacity for that kind of friends, thanks.

    Heidi | Aug 9, 2009 | Reply

  826. Oh, look! Another thing atheists didn’t do.

    This is exactly representative of the problem as shown in Dave’s initial blog post. Now it’s obvious this guy is pretty damned disturbed. At least, it’s obvious to me. But. Tony’s religious views were legitimized by mainstream religion. He heard (relatively) sane people saying the same things he was. He absolutely idolized VenomFangX on YouTube. VFX is a whacked out Young Earth Creationist kid who makes videos where he reads creationist lies off other sites in his angry little militant shit voice.

    Now, when you unquestioningly follow a book full of hate and lies, you can tell yourself all you want that “oh, that part isn’t meant to be taken literally.” But who was there to tell that to Tony? Answer: nobody. His parents obviously didn’t know he was that crazy. His mom only knew he was depressed. So they couldn’t help him. They didn’t know they needed to tell him there was this magic key that tells you which parts to believe and which parts to pretend aren’t there.

    He read that women should be subservient. He read that being gay is an abomination. He read that people who try to lead you away from god should be put to death. Nobody gave him the code that says “oh, hey, god was drunk that day, just skip over that bit.” And obviously he couldn’t figure it out for himself. So tell me, how was he supposed to know?

    How was he supposed to form the idea in his crazy mind that even though a huge portion of Americans INSIST that the bible is literally true, and the inerrant word of god, they didn’t mean that part?

    So now Tony is dead. But that wasn’t enough for his crazy mind. He had to take 20-year-old Asia McGowan with him. She wanted to be an actress. She didn’t want to be subservient to a hateful lunatic. See, Asia had a thing against “haters.” And she was murdered for it by a crazy man who didn’t know you weren’t supposed to take all of the “literal, inerrant truth” literally.

    Was that On Topic enough for you, Ann?

    Heidi | Aug 10, 2009 | Reply

  827. @bobby: It ain’t intellectual prowess to see through all the b/s, mate. Just requires a really, really, really good pair of glasses. :P

    Also, I put that sentence together in like, seconds, because my friend was nagging me to give him back his Macbook. :P I blame my M.D. parents, and their M.D. and engineer parents. Eloquence appears to run in my family. ::preens::

    @Heidi:

    ‘Now, when you unquestioningly follow a book full of hate and lies, you can tell yourself all you want that “oh, that part isn’t meant to be taken literally.”’

    But you just know you’re lying to yourself anyway.

    Frankly, any text that requires a Vigenère square (or worse) to decipher, is worth neither reading nor worshipping.

    blufindr | Aug 10, 2009 | Reply

  828. @blufindr: You may not *need* the high intelligence to see through the con, but it does make it harder to be a believer when you have a high IQ and/or a lot of education.

    (Before pplr and Ann get all defensive, it wasn’t an attack per se. It was just a fact. People with more education tend to be less religious. Look it up.)

    Heidi | Aug 10, 2009 | Reply

  829. Blufinder

    Or all/most/many of us get to go to heaven.

    How soon are you going to see your GSA friends?

    Heidi

    ‘Divide and conquer, eh?

    Personally, I translated his statement as “you are an ass.” My daughter was a GSA officer, btw.’

    That is making excuses for Bobby.

    Back in college I was a member of GSA (not the most accomplished but certainly supportive of the organization and its goals), don’t remember anyone saying something like that or anything positive of someone who had.

    I recall you once saying before you would speak up if Bobby said anything “truly hateful”. He has and you go back on your word because he is a verbal ally? You gave allusions to being a follower of secular humanism as well. I don’t know its tenets but if they include things like don’t go back on your word & treat others like you’d like to be treated you’re in the process of disregarding both for the sake of an alliance with a bigot.

    You should consider asking yourself if some alliances are worth the price of maintaining.

    pplr | Aug 10, 2009 | Reply

  830. Hey, purp, help me out here, what was that thing Jesus said about removing the moat from one’s own eye?

    Anyway, what have I said that was hateful? You mean the insults? Let’s get real here. It takes two, mate. You’re not required to take offence. No, really. Frankly, if you called me those things I wouldn’t care. Trust me on this, I’ve been called everything under the sun. I don’t care. But if you like being a martyr, go for it.

    You keep calling me a bigot, I guess you think I hate all Christians. The fact is I don’t hate anybody. I’m fed up with you assholes trying to shove your superstition down my throat, but that’s not hate. I can’t be bothered to hate.

    I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. I’m very much a live and let live kinda guy. That’s not something that can be said of bigots. You practice your beliefs in private and don’t bother me with them, I’m good with that.

    I’m tired of churches claiming tax free status and then being overtly political, it’s not right.

    bobby | Aug 10, 2009 | Reply

  831. Yet another thing atheists did not do.

    @pplr: Given the multitude of regulations in the Bible, I highly doubt that not sinning is possible.

    I’ve seen them. ::shrugs:: Frankly, I don’t think he’s a bigot. I mean, you’re entitled to your opinion. Stop trying to force it down my throat, though. Oh, wait!

    blufindr | Aug 10, 2009 | Reply

  832. @blufindr

    I was referring to the way you strung the words together. It was elegant.

    “That religion is, frankly, an illogical miasmic conglomerate of other folklore, which is worshipped by hypocrites.”

    I spend a lot of time putting words together, it’s what I do, and I’m told I do it quite well. I even get paid for it. Modesty does not become you, you’re smart and talented, get used to it.

    bobby | Aug 10, 2009 | Reply

  833. You should ask yourself if you’re not reading more into his statements than is actually there because he’s aiming them specifically at you.

    And, OMFSM! I may not be acting in accordance with secular humanism, which I don’t belong to, if your made-up assumptions about it are true! What was I thinking?! Shoot me now!

    You’re freaking ridiculous.

    Heidi | Aug 10, 2009 | Reply

  834. @blufindr: Exorcism? Yikes!

    Heidi | Aug 10, 2009 | Reply

  835. @bobby: I suppose. :P

    It’s entirely truthful, no?

    blufindr | Aug 10, 2009 | Reply

  836. Bobby

    That is one of the few times recently you have managed to say something to me without insults.

    I haven’t been trying to shove “superstition” down your throat.

    Unless you are friends enough with someone that insults are way you guys play with each other they are generally meant to cause offense.

    About tax exempt churches being political, there are times when it happens and times when it doesn’t. But even for those when it does there are often just as politically vocal non-profit organizations that are also (as far as I know) tax exempt. So talk of undoing exempt status for religious groups doesn’t treat all such parties equally.

    pplr | Aug 10, 2009 | Reply

  837. @Heidi: Indeed, exorcisms. In the Vollmer case, with Glad-wrap and forcible restraints, no less.

    blufindr | Aug 10, 2009 | Reply

  838. pplr -

    I don’t recall ever accusing you of prosthlytizing here, I said I’m fed up with Christians doing that. Muslims don’t do it, it’s a Christian thing. Why you’re here is still a mystery, It’s my considered opinion that you probably just can’t stand us having the right to say what we think, but whatever.

    As to tax exempt status, I don’t think any organization that seeks to influence laws on moral issues should be. But you see, that’s the difference. Churches have that aim.

    bobby | Aug 10, 2009 | Reply

  839. You hold that against Christians, I’m Christian. Thereby you hold it against me by default.

    Now if it wasn’t due to my religious understandings, why all the insults?

    You can say what you think, but when you do so can others.

    Clarification on your last point, are you against tax exempt status for those trying to influence the law as a whole, those who claim to be doing so for moral reasons, or those who do so on laws relating to “moral issues”? (if none of these fit then say what does)

    pplr | Aug 10, 2009 | Reply

  840. Like I said, if you get off on being a martyr, go for it, whatever floats your boat.

    I made myself clear, anyone seeking to impose laws on moral issues should not be tax exempt, if you want to impose your will on such issues you should be contributing to the material well being of society as a whole. For instance, abortion, gay marriage, laws that restrict trade, etc.

    bobby | Aug 10, 2009 | Reply

  841. My $0.02 on legalising morality: It is useless to make law, what is subjective. What is right to some, may be blatantly wrong to another.

    blufindr | Aug 10, 2009 | Reply

  842. @Bobby: Since he’s listening to you, can you please explain to him that all his baiting, twisting, button pushing, leading question, game playing, asssholian tactics are what created the hostile, insulting atmosphere? He intentionally set out to see if he could get a rise out of anybody who disagrees with him, just so he could say “aha! I knew it!” when it happened.

    I’ve heard the whole script so many times that I’m beyond exasperated with willful ignorance. It’s like talking to Ben Stein or the dumb blonde on Fox whose name I can’t remember now. Gretchen something? Carlson maybe? Is that right?

    Heidi | Aug 10, 2009 | Reply

  843. You were the one making me into a martyr so whose boat was being floated?

    About laws on “moral” issues. Planned Parenthood (among others) would loose its tax exempt status. If you support that you are being consistent.

    There is a gray area on trade issues. Some would say trade restrictions should be done based on national interest, economic reasons (including profit making) and/or maintaining set living standards. People can debate back and forth if the theories behind these positions are sound but they aren’t made purely out of moral reasons.

    pplr | Aug 10, 2009 | Reply

  844. Oh my. Listen, idiot, nobody can make you anything. Victim mentality is another issue I feel strongly about. I’ve had it to here with people who go around insisting that others “make” them what they are.

    YOU are responsible for your life. Nobody can make you feel anything without YOUR PERMISSION. Full stop. To think otherwise is bullshit. You are not powerless, so stop whining.

    Planned Parenthood? Moral issues? No. Absolutely not. If can’t see the difference between them and the church you’re even more demented than I thought.

    By trade restrictions I meant religion insisting that businesses be closed at Easter and Christmas. More of that famous shoving of religion down everyone’s throats.

    bobby | Aug 10, 2009 | Reply

  845. Its a good thing for Heidi you missed when she went through explaining how badly atheists are treated-including where she pointed to what a black lady was saying. The general premise of that is arguably “victim mentality” if you see things that way.

    I know the difference between a church and Planned Parenthood, but the fact is the both advocate positions (and sometimes candidates as they relate) on laws relating to “moral issues”.

    I was able to shop on a holiday (even if hours are often lower). If you run a business and want it to be open then by all means, keep it open.

    pplr | Aug 10, 2009 | Reply

  846. Hey, fuckwit? Joseph is a boy name. Joseph Perkins is a male. Way to pay attention.

    The stupid is getting thicker in here with every word pplr types.

    Heidi | Aug 10, 2009 | Reply

  847. I was referring to “Big Mama”. You should let reality slow you down before you assume.

    pplr | Aug 10, 2009 | Reply

  848. Oh, sorry, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and “assuming” that you weren’t lying, given that isn’t what I said about Big Mama.

    So you’re a fuckwit AND a liar. What page is that in the bible? The bit where thou shalt be a lying fuckwit, I mean?

    Keep spewing out the stupid, lying fuckwit.

    Heidi | Aug 10, 2009 | Reply

  849. @pplr: Oh my. Okay. I’ve managed to restrain myself on opening my big mouth and laying into you this far, but no further. You, sir, are an idiot. Since when was giving women the right to choose whether they want to be a baby hotel in any way a moral issue? Actually, since you’ve managed to stretch your mind around that concept, maybe you’d like to outlaw the law, too. Given that our legal system grants us rights. You know. Just like Planned Parenthood grants women rights that men take for absolute granted.

    My father’s clinic was stormed a couple of Easters ago, and boycotted by all his Christian patients (which, by the way, are a large demographic in this town), because he chose to keep it open. Why? Because he was being “insensitive to [their] religious beliefs”. Wrap your mind around that, if you can.

    blufindr | Aug 10, 2009 | Reply

  850. Blufindr

    Abortion is often referred to as a “moral” issue.

    If you want to talk about it as a “rights” issues go ahead. Libertarians and the group below disagree with you there.

    http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

    The people who stormed the clinic were being foolish and intolerant.

    Heidi

    If I remember what you said it was something like “atheists can’t even put up a sign without a protest”. Assuming lies (you’re now doing) is still putting assumption before reality.

    pplr | Aug 10, 2009 | Reply

  851. @pplr: “Godlessprolifers”. Nice.

    I really do not believe abortion should be anything but a last resort. So no, “abortion used as a birth control substitute” is not an argument I use, ever. It’s not a moral thing from my standpoint, since I don’t consider the foetus deserving of any more rights than my malignant cancer. Not that I have malignant cancer, but you know.

    I agree entirely. The protesters were “foolish and intolerant”. However, they’re sadly rather exemplary of Christians and your apparent knack for pissing people off, by trying to enforce your belief on others.

    Aside: What is with this idea that because I’m an atheist, that I have no morals and eat babies for breakfast or something? I don’t need to believe in a sky fairy to know right from wrong.

    blufindr | Aug 10, 2009 | Reply

  852. Apologies in advance to Dave b/c this is probably going to be long.

    @pplr: Yes, you were lying. Or quote mining out of context in typical zealot style.

    The conversation went like this…

    *I said something about the holy rollers wanting to categorize all atheists as angry.
    *You said “Some atheists can be irrational and are “angry”.”
    *I said: “Um, what? When did I say that no atheist was every angry or irrational? Sometimes I’m angry and irrational, and I’m an atheist. So there’s that invalidated. But I like to think that overall I am not an angry or irrational person, which is how most theists would like to describe all atheists who are not accommodationists.”
    *Then you said: “Define “accomodationist” please.”
    and
    *”Also it would be hard for either of us to know what “most” religious people feel about atheists. I’m sure some would describe atheists as irrational and angry but for the word most to be used is a bit iffy without a poll or something.”

    So I copy/pasted the definition.

    (In the middle of this you pulled your strawman personal insult thing about how my morals were disturbed or some such, since I’m not a fan of Mother Teresa.)

    *And then you said: “There are some organizations that restrict the advancement of people who don’t share the beliefs of the group that organization affiliates itself with. However neither your economic survival nor political rights are by and large are not denied you in “Western” society in spite of any personal decision on your part to “believe” or not. There are a lot of places today where claiming that atheism is a reason you’re unfairly treated would be outdated.”

    *I said: “You asked for the definition of the word I used. I gave it. I said there are accommodationists. There are. You’re arguing with something I did not say.”

    *And you said: “I asked for the definition because I both didn’t know what it was (though I guessed) nor how you were using it. The implication of you comment was that if atheists didn’t act like they agreed with Christians they would be prejudiced against and hindered/harmed somehow-and the definition plus the way you used in includes people losing their jobs just for being an atheist. As I said, by and large you’re safe in this society in terms of job security if you are an atheist or not.”

    (Around this time you accused Bobby of having erectile dysfunction, then laughed it off as saying he had an emotional disability. Because that kind of thing is apparently funny to you.)

    *I answered: “Again, not quite what I said. But yes, that sort of thing does go on. What I mean(t) is that accommodationists are the ones who call outspoken atheists “militant” (just like believers do), and implore us to just shut up and leave things at status quo.”

    Then you compared accommodationists to your sister-in-law, and asked if “militant” atheists were like missionaries or like religious people who brought up their beliefs when asked. (A question much like “do you still beat your wife?”)

    I said, no, they are not. Then I made an analogy to Dr. King and Malcolm X.

    *At which point, you said: “That said, you really aren’t that badly off in terms of rights.” and went off on a rant of how atheists aren’t *really* discriminated against. And then you got passive-aggressive replying to blufindr about how I must have missed something you’d said, because I only gave your post a quick look.

    *I then said: “Holy shit, are you seriously that naive? We can’t put up a sign telling each other we’re not alone without Big Mama having a protest.” And gave a huge list of examples of it happening.

    You still want to tell me you weren’t lying/misrepresenting what I said? Let me remind you that you said:

    Its a good thing for Heidi you missed when she went through explaining how badly atheists are treated-including where she pointed to what a black lady was saying. The general premise of that is arguably “victim mentality” if you see things that way.

    Victim mentality? Um, no. I was directly responding to your insistence that atheists are not discriminated against. Correcting your misconception /= victim mentality.

    Heidi | Aug 10, 2009 | Reply

  853. @pplr

    Libertarians disagree with me? Well thank the flying spaghetti monster for that! I’ve never met a Libertarian who wasn’t and idiot.

    You’re really reaching your stride now, dude. You’ve finally accomplished what you came here for. Congratulations.

    bobby | Aug 10, 2009 | Reply

  854. You’re really reaching your stride now, dude. You’ve finally accomplished what you came here for. Congratulations.

    No shit, huh? He hadn’t been here 24 hours before he was acting like a dick. And you totally called him on it. Now I’ve wasted 3/4 of a month talking to this dick, and I honestly have no idea why. And he’s an even bigger dick now than when he got here.

    Heidi | Aug 10, 2009 | Reply

  855. Oh no! Don’t call him a big dick, we’ll never be rid of him! lol.

    bobby | Aug 10, 2009 | Reply

  856. Oh, should I have said smaller?! Sorry!

    Heidi | Aug 10, 2009 | Reply

  857. Oh yeah. No man ever wants to hear those two words in the same sentence.

    bobby | Aug 10, 2009 | Reply

  858. Should we start calling him little dick, then?

    Heidi | Aug 10, 2009 | Reply

  859. The Male Code of Honour prevents me, but please, you and blufindr, feel free.

    bobby | Aug 10, 2009 | Reply

  860. Cale from Looking for Group (webcomic) would do it. He calls Richard “dick” all the time. And when Richard got hit with the shrinking magic, Cale called him little dick. Heh. Good times.

    Heidi | Aug 10, 2009 | Reply

  861. But “little” implies presence…

    blufindr | Aug 10, 2009 | Reply

  862. lol. I’ve always know, and this is further confirmation, in humans, as with many other species, the female is deadlier than the male.

    That really puts the lie to the Christian myth of woman being created from man. If they had claimed it the other way it would have been more credible.

    bobby | Aug 10, 2009 | Reply

  863. Blufindr

    “However, they’re sadly rather exemplary of Christians and your apparent knack for pissing people off, by trying to enforce your belief on others.”

    Bobby has noted I’m not trying to convert people here. What belief is it that I’m forcing on you? Also if some of the people here are as intolerant as the crowd there was that is a sign they were already looking for an excuse to be pissed off and have sometimes been making it up (Heidi’s assumptions) because I’m not pissing them off, they already wanted to be.

    “Aside: What is with this idea that because I’m an atheist, that I have no morals and eat babies for breakfast or something?”

    I never said that and considering I’ve already pointed out some atheists I respect (including a good/trustworthy friend of mine) it isn’t hard to see I don’t believe it.

    Heidi & Bobby

    When I first used ED I meant is as emotional disability, even pointed that out to you-I laughed when you (Heidi) suggested the other meaning. Of course the irony here is that Bobby seems to be getting calmer.

    pplr | Aug 10, 2009 | Reply

  864. No, the true irony here is that I haven’t changed, it’s your perception of my that has. I don’t work from a script the way you do, I just stay in the moment and respond as I see fit.

    As to whether what you are doing could be defined as trying to convert people, it’s a matter of degrees. You haven’t actually said what you are here for, and at this point no one is going to believe you anyway, because you have no qualms about lying.

    bobby | Aug 10, 2009 | Reply

  865. “You haven’t actually said what you are here for, and at this point no one is going to believe you anyway, because you have no qualms about lying.”

    When I said Heidi went back on her word I meant it and explained why instead of just making claims. I’m very sure I have more qualms about lying than you just gave me credit for.

    pplr | Aug 11, 2009 | Reply

  866. When I first used ED I meant is as emotional disability, even pointed that out to you-I laughed when you (Heidi) suggested the other meaning.

    Oh, really?

    pplr: “I’m ADD as well but there is a difference between ADD and ED.”
    Me: “You think Bobby has Erectile Dysfunction?

    (Kind of joking, but I don’t know what you mean by ED.)”
    pplr: “Thankyou, thats funny. I didn’t mean it that way and I know alot of guys would be insulted by it but Bobby has gone out of his way to intentionally insult so often he kinda earned it.

    I actually meant ED as in Emotional Disability. It is a term used by public schools systems within my state (and I’m guessing others as well).”

    Sounds to me like you used it intentionally knowing that it would be interpreted that way. But oh, haha! I really meant emotionally disabled! Isn’t that funny? Hahaha!

    When I said Heidi went back on her word I meant it and explained why instead of just making claims. I’m very sure I have more qualms about lying than you just gave me credit for.

    Which is a pretty funny thing for you to say, given that your supposed evidence for my “going back on my word” was a lie. I notice that you did not bother to respond to my post where I quoted you on it. But hey, god-botherers making up lies to support their position is nothing new to me. *shrug*

    @Bobby & blufindr: I figured out why Ann doesn’t think I stay on topic. The two of them completely ignore what I say that’s actually on topic. I guess b/c it’s indefensible and inconvenient. Just like all the evil bits of the bible. So they pretend it’s not there.

    Heidi | Aug 11, 2009 | Reply

  867. Heidi

    More assumptions rather than reality on your part.

    The context of comparing ADD and ED is one of comparing disabilities frequently noted/relevant in an educational setting. They can impact a person’s life beyond that, but that setting is where they are often first seen in life.

    I said right then and there that I did not mean ED as you described. You were the first one to use it as such, not me. What you quoted matches what I had summarized in a recent comment as well.

    My description of what happened fits the facts/reality.

    pplr | Aug 11, 2009 | Reply

  868. Sure, keep lying. It’s becoming on you. It’s not like you’d recognize reality if it walked up and bit you on the ass, anyway.

    Heidi | Aug 11, 2009 | Reply

  869. @bobby: There are a great many jokes about that. :P One claiming men to be the woman’s superfluous third boob. I dunno, that often seems to be the case. ;)

    @pplr: When did I say that you were trying to convert people? I simply said that it was a trend I was noticing amongst Christians. Aha, putting words in my mouth again.

    Again, you’re inferring incorrectly from my statement. I simply added, as a random (and albeit, vague) musing, that the general assumption seems to be that it’s not possible to be moral without supernatural guidance and wrath.

    @Heidi: Oh yes. Selective reading seems to be a trait well-shared.

    blufindr | Aug 11, 2009 | Reply

  870. I just found this article, debunking Creationism. Funny how there’s nothing else that irrefutably disproves atheism the same way.

    blufindr | Aug 11, 2009 | Reply

  871. Interesting site, blufindr. Thanks. I never knew Martin Luther King Jr. didn’t believe in a divine Jesus.

    bobby | Aug 11, 2009 | Reply

  872. Oh my, more weblinks. Seems that a multitude of debates have started over at Yahoo! Answers, about the integrity of God and the Bible, and Christianity’s similarity to various other religions.

    blufindr | Aug 11, 2009 | Reply

  873. That was a great link, blufindr.

    But you know the YEC answer to evidence: Oh, but god’s just messing with our heads. The woo only makes you *think* the universe is that big/old/whatever.

    No one ever comes up with any explanation for why their god would want to mess with people’s heads, though. They just vaguely mumble stuff about “testing us,” and “cannot know god’s mind.” Except they can know the part where he wants them to go out gay bashing, right?

    I didn’t know that about Dr. King, either. I wonder if Big Mama knows.

    My favorite bits at that page are:

    Evangelicals are shooting themselves in the foot…
    In 1996, another poll by the Barna Research Group (made up mostly of evangelicals) found that 83% of Americans identified themselves as Christian, and fewer than 20% of non-Christians held an unfavorable view of Christianity. But between 2004 and 2007, a similar Barna poll found that 38% of non-Christians had a bad impression of Christianity. Much of this downtrend has occurred because of right-wing-Christians thrust toward increased judgmental ideas, hypocrisy, anti-homosexuality, and its involvement in politics.

    Scholars *don’t* know if Jesus was real, contrary to what some people insist…
    Today, more and more Biblical scholars question the validity of the methods used by Christian apologists. Not only do scholars such as Robert M. Price, Randel McCraw Helms, Earl Doherty, and many others, question the old methods used by apologists but they question the very idea that a Jesus in history existed at all.

    Calling it the same thing fools the masses and makes the wackos look legitimate…
    It only takes a few influential Christians, in the right time and place, to convince a voting public through fear mongering and the power of politics. When religious people vote for politicians who frame their political stand on the abstractions of “God” or “Jesus”, we can get the very kind of war politics as we have seen when American Christians naively voted for George W. Bush. Right-wing Christian politicians use the very same religious words as do liberal Christians but to the secular population, they couch their rhetoric in secular terms. It only takes a single Christian politician to demolish a free secular government.

    I think I’ll read some more of that site…

    Heidi | Aug 11, 2009 | Reply

  874. Heh. I gave that guy on Yahoo a big long answer. I suspect it will get me flamed. But meh, it wouldn’t be the first time someone was set ablaze for heresy.

    Heidi | Aug 11, 2009 | Reply

  875. VenomFangX is a toxic dweeb.
    So are you. PPLR

    proud kuffar | Aug 11, 2009 | Reply

  876. VenomFangX is a toxic dweeb.

    Yes he is. And he’s a rich little self-important shit, too. Notice how he lives in a mansion which you can see in some of his videos. Go out in the real world, little freak boy.

    It makes me SO pissed off that in his “statement” thing about Tony he won’t even say Asia McGowan’s name. He just calls her “a young woman.” There’s a whole video by someone else who was also pissed off about that. Asia had a name, and she was beautiful and talented. And now she’s gone. The whole thing makes me so mad.

    Heidi | Aug 11, 2009 | Reply

  877. @bludfindr

    Thanks for that, it was fun. I especially like Lake of Fire dude. Typical of the walking brain dead that regurgitate the mindless cant they suffer under.

    @Heidi

    I gave you a thumbs up for your contribution and the rest of them thumbs down. You currently have the best rating. lol.

    bobby | Aug 11, 2009 | Reply

  878. @Proud Kuffar

    Good to see you again. I love your brevity.

    bobby | Aug 11, 2009 | Reply

  879. Yay, me! lol. Thanks Bobby.

    Heidi | Aug 11, 2009 | Reply

  880. Just had another look at the one about the bible being the word of god.

    Some pinhead named Andre had this to say:

    God is perfect. For God to lie would go against his nature and therefore, it would not be real (because something that is not ‘true’ cannot create something ‘true’.)

    He is ALWAYS who he claimed to be. Remember, Jesus didn’t come to CHANGE the Old Testament, but to FULFILL IT.

    Wow. Talk about walking brain death. Leaving aside the fact that he can’t spell, consider the line: Jesus came to fulfil the old testament.

    Now there is someone who has never even opened a bible let alone having a clue what the hell he’s talking about. He’s just parroting what he was told. Pathetic.

    bobby | Aug 11, 2009 | Reply

  881. Okay, one more:

    God is the same God from the book of genesis.

    Um…which one? There are so very many in Genesis. But then, if you’ve never opened a bible I guess you wouldn’t know that.

    bobby | Aug 11, 2009 | Reply

  882. Oh, blufindr, why did you have to start this? ;-)

    Here’s a new question on the sight:

    Was Jesus Christ an Alcoholic Playboy?
    He could turn water into wine — Nuff said.
    and I get the feeling he was a playboy since so many people hated him (prob. for sleeping with their wives, daughters, aunts, mothers), that he was a playboy.
    Is this true, and if Jesus were alive today, do you think he would be more prone to:
    a) Become the leader of a motorcycle gang
    b) Become a hit John Travolta-style dancer
    c) Develop a huge ego because everyone worships him and become the next Hugh Hefner
    or
    d) Become a priest

    Thank you! :)
    28 minutes ago – 4 days left to answer.
    Additional Details
    If this question offends you, please back up why. Is there something wrong with John Travolta or Priests??? I mean, Hugh Hefner practically is Jesus in Capital America.

    Here’s one response:

    no actually you have Jesus mixed up with someone you idolize in hollywood. I am sure you will remember his name.

    In the mean time I am praying for you to get saved.
    I am sending your name to my church to make sure it happens quick.

    Wow. And she calls herself Hyacinth. No, really. So very typical of the imbeciles that make up mainstream Christianity.

    bobby | Aug 11, 2009 | Reply

  883. I’m sorry, I just can’t help myself, I just have to post one more question from Yahoo Spirituality:

    Should I sleep with my sister?
    Sister Gretchen at my local Catholic church is losing faith and she’s also hot. She’s about 24 and says she can’t take all the hate and intolerance associated with Catholics. She also believes that it’s a sin to chose to be chaste. So would it be good of me to help her escape sin. And I’ve read the bible many times and according to a lot of people it is a sin to chose to be chaste. In fact the some of the Jewish community still believes that now. I’m just glad she wants to leave that place and have a normal life. She’s also been my friend for awhile, we discuss religion all the time as I’m agnostic. She might be the one to prove to me that not all Catholics or Christians are intolerant. But still a mortal fiber inside me says it might be wrong to bang a nun. She won’t be one for long anyway but still. What do you think should I go for it?

    This guy, is, of course having everyone one, but he got serious answers! Stupidity is endlessly amusing to me.

    bobby | Aug 11, 2009 | Reply

  884. @blufindr

    This is all your fault! We’re both going to burn in the lake of fire. See you there! lol.

    bobby | Aug 11, 2009 | Reply

  885. Did you read the answer “catwomen” posted to the second question blufindr linked? It’s since been deleted. But she said that her ex-husband’s sister’s cousin’s dog or something says that it’s not true, and that he’s just trying to mix Wicca into their religion. Bwah?

    I’d love to know WTF she thinks Wicca has to do with Egyptian mythology. I found the link to that question in one of the answers to the post

    You can still see where the OP amended the question to respond to her, though.

    Catwomen, The ancient Isian religion of Egypt has NOTHING to do with modern day Wicca. I’m specifically speaking of the ancient practices in the temples of Egypt, and not about your ex husband’s wife’s cousin’s whatever.

    Heidi | Aug 11, 2009 | Reply

  886. Is that the same one who claims to a Christian with a friend who is involved with Egyptian religion and told her that all the stuff about Mithras was one big lie?

    If that isn’t a case of a lying sack of Christian I don’t know what is. A friend who’s into Egyptian religion. Yeah, right. And I’m the real Jesus. Christians have no qualms about lying to protect the woo, that’s a fact.

    bobby | Aug 11, 2009 | Reply

  887. Yeah, I think that might have been the same one.

    But I’ve met the real Jesus. He was a homeless guy with orange hair who lived outside a convenience store when I was in high school. I know he’s the real Jesus, because he used to tell everybody so. All the time.

    I really like this cartoon, btw. Maybe the cruelty-in-the-name-of-atheism crowd’s hive mind can process cartoonage.

    Heidi | Aug 11, 2009 | Reply

  888. blufindr, look what you’ve started! Yahoo question:

    Spiritually speaking, is it better to be a bigot or a hypocrite?

    Now I love this one because I’m labelled a bigot, and both pplr and Ann are complete hypocrites. Now for one of the answers that was posted:

    Bigots are Waaaay better. A hypocrite is worthless both to themselves and others. If you can’t follow your own advice then you need to stfu in my opinion.

    lol! That about sums it up.

    bobby | Aug 11, 2009 | Reply

  889. blufindr

    My g/f wants me to tell you that she went to school (preschool through 12th grade) at catholic seminary schools, and separated herself from christian teachings around the age you are now. She has a great deal of respect for you for figuring things out at an early age, and for your intelectual prowes. She wants you to know you’re her new hero ;)

    She would post all of this herself, but she’s in a wheelchair and has a nasty pressure sore so she can’t sit up at the computer for very long.

    Heidi and bobby, she said to also give props to the both of you, she’s just especially impressed with blufindr because of her young age, and I agree whole heartedly.

    WWM | Aug 11, 2009 | Reply

  890. Come to think of it, I was around blufindr’s age when I lost my faith. I was 16 when I decided that I wanted better arguments to use FOR christianity, so I turned to the “logical” place and decided to read the bible cover to cover. I made it a few books in before I was starting to waiver in my belief and started over with a pen and a bunch of little scraps of paper to write notes on. I went through the bible twice making notes on little book marks and in the margins. It took me about 3 months. When I was done, I spent a night looking over all the things I found wrong with the bible and realized I could never turn a blind eye to the truth again. The Bible proved to me that it was nothing more then a book of fairy tails.

    I constantly ask “pod people” if they have ever read the bible cover to cover, and as of yet, I have only had 1 tell me yes. Though when I ask other atheists, it’s closer to 50%, maybe even higher

    WWM | Aug 11, 2009 | Reply

  891. My regards to your girlfriend. Yes, it’s very often the case that non-believers know more about the bible than Christians. Makes sense, no? If they ever really looked at it eyes wide open instead of eyes wide shut they’d see what’s wrong with it, and that’s the last thing they want. Most of them really need to believe. They think they’d be lost if they didn’t. It’s sad.

    bobby | Aug 11, 2009 | Reply

  892. Hi WWM’s g/f! I agree. Blufindr is awesome. I’m very proud of her as well. :-)

    And yeah, most of the Christians I’ve met don’t know half of what’s actually in the bible. They know what church told them, which may or may not be related to anything written in the book, depending on the subject and the message being conveyed from it. Then you have the people thinking the Immaculate Conception = Mary becoming pregnant as a virgin. Um, look it up, dudes. It’s Mary’s conception without sin (no one really says how that happened, AFAIK).

    Sad.

    Heidi | Aug 11, 2009 | Reply

  893. Well, it’s all just a made up story anywhere, but I never bought that whole virgin birth thing even as a kid. I used to think Joseph was a real sucker if he bought into that. No, really, dear, it was all god’s doing. uh huh. lol.

    bobby | Aug 12, 2009 | Reply

  894. There’s a sucker born every minute. Apparently, Joseph was the guy in his minute.

    Heidi | Aug 12, 2009 | Reply

  895. and actually the one christian who told me yes he had read the bible all the way through was a “youth minister” and after a series of debates with me, he gave up his faith and kinda became lost not knowing what to do since he had put all his stock in one day opening his own church

    WWM | Aug 12, 2009 | Reply

  896. @bobby: I’ll save you a seat. ::sips from a glass of brimstone and hellfire::

    Y! Answers is great! You get some really, classic questions on there. I posted a question a while ago, re: the illogicality of an all-loving but vengeful God. Props if you can find it. ;)

    @Heidi: You can’t know the real Jesus. We’ve got another guy who lives in front of our convenience store, swigging from a bottle of wine (that no doubt, he got from the water from taps at the petrol station across the street), who tells everyone to “love God” because “[he is] Jesus and Judgment Day is coming” blah blah blah. :|

    I’ve seen that cartoon before. But it gets me every time. ;)

    @WWM: Thank you! ::blush:: Tell your girlfriend that I’m greatly flattered. But also that I worked a lot of this out around year 10. ;)

    Once you dismantle the cosmological, ontological (rather, argument from degree), and teleological arguments, you really can’t believe in God any more. :|

    My then-best-friend and I started going through the Bible about 3 years ago. We quit halfway through Genesis. There were just so many logical fallacies. :S

    Which reminds me of a horrid joke I heard from a friend today:
    What’s the difference between the Bible, and a book of homosexual erotica?

    (One is a book of fairy tales for adults, and the other is a book of adult tales for fairies)

    Actually, now that we’re gotten on the topic of the Virgin Mary: My partner’s theory is that the term “Virgin” refers to the fact that Jesus is Mary’s first child, and not necessarily indicative of her sexually pure status.

    blufindr | Aug 12, 2009 | Reply

  897. @blufindr

    Yeah, who knows what they meant about Mary. It may not translate well. She probably never existed anyway.

    @WWM

    You’re gonna burn in hell, mate!

    bobby | Aug 12, 2009 | Reply

  898. I think the reasons I’m gonna burn in hell would fill a library lol

    WWM | Aug 12, 2009 | Reply

  899. Blufindr

    “When did I say that you were trying to convert people? I simply said that it was a trend I was noticing amongst Christians. Aha, putting words in my mouth again.”

    No, you said this on “Aug 10, 2009″

    “However, they’re sadly rather exemplary of Christians and your apparent knack for pissing people off, by trying to enforce your belief on others.”

    How am I trying to get others to have my “belief” when I’m not trying to convert you?

    Heidi

    “However, if he had actually said anything that I found truly hateful, I would have spoken up.” Said “Jul 25, 2009″.

    Of course maybe I should have realized just how unlikely you would have ever have “found” anything when you assert your own assumptions for reality.

    pplr | Aug 12, 2009 | Reply

  900. @bobby: I think it was here that I first heard this, but apparently, there was no record at all of a Mary or Joseph in Roman tax records — which were very, very meticulous.

    @WWM: I’ve got a full storage locker — full of instructions on how to find the reasons I’m going to be in hell. :P

    @pplr: ::sigh::

    Saying that it was a general trend =/= applying it directly to you. Learn the difference, yo.

    blufindr | Aug 12, 2009 | Reply

  901. Yep. No Joseph, no Mary. Fairy tale. Bethlehem didn’t exist at that time either as far as can be determined. The oldest artifacts they’ve dug up date to more than 100 years later.

    bobby | Aug 12, 2009 | Reply

  902. @pplr: It’s so cute of you to keep quote mining and changing the subject trying to make yourself look good.

    Let’s review your last statement, shall we?

    I said:
    However, if he had actually said anything that I found truly hateful, I would have spoken up.

    Guess what, pplr? He hasn’t said anything that I find truly hateful. Reread it a couple of times. I never once said “if he makes fun of pplr and hurts his feelings…” If you want to act like an asshat, you get to deal with the consequences, little man.

    Now back to your lying…
    Are you declining to defend your misrepresentation of my statements about Big Mama? You know, the bit where you accused me of having a “victim mentality” back when you were all “oh, you aren’t *really* discriminated against.” And then I corrected you? Perhaps because your lies are indefensible?

    @blufindr: I haven’t seen the Jesus guy outside the convenience store in years. Maybe he moved. He could probably walk all the way there on water, right? Make his own food and drink on the way if he needed any? Or maybe he made a log raft like the post-flood ones in the creation museum. They say there that humans and animals used log mats to cross the oceans, as they don’t believe in Pangaea.

    I have figured out why pplr is here, rather than bothering PZ though. PZ would ban his sad ass, and probably has already.

    Heidi | Aug 12, 2009 | Reply

  903. arguing with a theist is like arguing with a 3 year old. No matter how hard you try, all you’ll get are emotional responses at best.

    WWM | Aug 12, 2009 | Reply

  904. I want that on a T-shirt. lol.

    Heidi | Aug 12, 2009 | Reply

  905. @pplr

    Bobby has said many things in general about theists, none of them hateful, more along the lines of disgust with general truths about theists. He HAS said things about YOU brought on by your own underhanded methods of trying to argue… I say trying because you haven’t been very successful and have only managed to make yourself look like a complete moron. Mostly your outright lies and misquotes. You take the same tactic I see every time I get into a debate with a theist, and it is the easiest and yet the hardest tactic to agrue against at the same time.

    I say the easiest because it uses nothing factual. Opinion, scare tactics, misrepresentations of what others have said, partial quotes taken out of context, etc. None of these things bring up a valid argument.

    I say it’s also the hardest because people who use such tactics do not care about facts and when facts are presented, they simply ignore them or try to twist them to their advantage. Both of which you have done repetedly.

    WWM | Aug 12, 2009 | Reply

  906. Nice summation of the facts there, WWM. I’m still convinced he knows full well what he’s doing and that he’s doing it simply to be disruptive. It goes back to the whole being pissed off that we can say whatever we like about the superstition he clings to.

    or as Bob Dylan once put it:

    them that defend what they cannot see
    with a killer’s pride, security,
    it blows their minds most bitterly
    for them to think death’s honesty
    won’t fall upon them naturally,
    life sometimes must get lonely…

    bobby | Aug 12, 2009 | Reply

  907. @Heidi: I’m already designing a “What’s the probability of me passing this exam?” shirt for my math crew. Want me to hop on that afterwards?

    @bobby: Bob Dylan is great, yo.

    —-

    Also, found this site the other day. The following appear to sound familiar:
    - Ad baculum
    - Ad hominem
    - Ad ignorantium
    - Ad populum
    - Ipse dixit
    - Red herring
    - Straw man
    - Tu quoque
    - Amphiboly
    - Equivocation
    - Apriorism
    - Complex question
    - Either/or
    - Petitio principii
    - Post hoc ergo propter hoc

    Most of these logical fallacies are part of “proofs” for God’s existence.

    Now, given that arguments of these forms are accepted as logical fallacies…

    Hm. What does that say about the validity of proof, then?

    blufindr | Aug 12, 2009 | Reply

  908. Some of them I haven’t heard of, the rest I’ve encountered both here and elsewhere. You can’t defend the indefensible, but they keep trying. It’s all about need.

    bobby | Aug 12, 2009 | Reply

  909. Or “faith”…

    blufindr | Aug 12, 2009 | Reply

  910. Notice our little podlings ignored my question about faith and wishful thinking, as in, what concrete difference is there between the two. I think it should be the default question every time one of them wants to do battle with us. No engagement until they answer the question. That should keep the dissonance level down.

    bobby | Aug 12, 2009 | Reply

  911. Heidi

    I gave a big long reply when you talked about things done to atheists. For awhile I wasn’t sure if Dave still had it under moderation (note my comment about that fact on “Jul 24, 2009″). I just checked and after being under moderation for a week or two it appears to have been discarded. Generally if I saw something that was illegal/unjustified (such as being fired just for being an atheist) I sided with the atheist. I also pointed out that I doubt this represents the norm in society today.

    With Big Mama I think I said you had the weakest claim to saying rights were violated unless the sign was taken down after it was paid for (violation of contracting and/or speech rights). If you didn’t care for her protest then counter protest-both of you have free speech.

    About the girl who was bullied in high school-I said that stuff shouldn’t have happened but it was finally being addressed (in court). Note she had a Christian lawyer-which is how it should be, peoples’ rights defended regardless of religious belief/understanding (lawyer supporting her rights despite not agreeing with her).

    WWM

    “Mostly your outright lies and misquotes.”

    Come up with what you say are lies and explain/prove it, is this just more assumptions?

    Blufindr

    Don’t generalize, especially when talking to a specific person. When I talk to or say something about Heidi, Bobby, and so on I try not to generalize to a broad group.

    Bobby

    I already talked about this with references to people each determining odds with the gamble they were taking on if religion/theism was real.

    pplr | Aug 13, 2009 | Reply

  912. Ah yes, I remember now. I had no idea what you were talking about. Couldn’t understand it.

    bobby | Aug 13, 2009 | Reply

  913. @pplr: I’m sorry, was that an actual dictation on your behalf as to my behaviour? Sorry, mother, I’ll try to not offend your sense of propriety in future. /sarcasm

    I concede that there are many Christians who do not try to enforce their behaviour on anyone else, and are perfectly content to be devout and whatever without bending anyone else to their whims. This does not mean that all Christians are like this. Refusing to acknowledge that a great number of Christians are, frankly, pushy, is blinkering oneself to the possible damage caused by one’s own group.

    As for Pascal’s Wager: What happens when you get up there and discover that, I don’t know, Vishnu or someone is in charge, hm?

    blufindr | Aug 13, 2009 | Reply

  914. Ah, Pascal’s Wager. I hadn’t heard that old chestnut pulled out in forever. My god, that one’s lame.

    Anyway, c’mon blufindr, you KNOW the Flying Spaghetti Monster is in charge!

    bobby | Aug 13, 2009 | Reply

  915. A wager is a wager, you know you’re making a bet when you choose to place one.

    Blufindr

    I know many Christians are pushy. They aren’t the only ones like that in this world and doors have hinges for a reason.

    I also know some of the things Christians, Atheists, Muslims, Hindus, and so on have been horrible. Doesn’t mean I’ll hold the next one I come across as if he or she was personally responsible (especially when he/she wasn’t even in the same nation when horrible thing X happened).

    pplr | Aug 13, 2009 | Reply

  916. Yes, in the name of the cacciatore, the bolognaise, and the carbonara, a-sghetti.

    blufindr | Aug 13, 2009 | Reply

  917. @pplr: ::sigh:: I won’t hold anyone responsible for anything — until they begin giving me flawed arguments and emotional blackmail for trying to get me to see things their way.

    blufindr | Aug 13, 2009 | Reply

  918. You seemed to be.

    With the arguments, pick them apart if you want and debate them. Note that some of the arguments sent to me have been pretty flawed.

    Emotional blackmail, if you point out what you’re talking about we’ll go over it. Maybe you’re right and maybe you aren’t.

    One thing that really cannot be said is that people weren’t trying to get at my own emotions.

    pplr | Aug 13, 2009 | Reply

  919. @pplr: Oh? Pray tell, what arguments seemed illogical to you?

    As for emotional blackmail… I haven’t seen it here (or if I have, I’ve clean forgot), but I’ve heard some fundies around here tell the atheists and Buddhists (and their very, very young children) that they will go to hell and suffer eternal pain if they don’t attend church every Sunday. That sounds rather like emotional blackmail to me.

    blufindr | Aug 13, 2009 | Reply

  920. Sounds like a good reason to laugh to me.

    bobby | Aug 13, 2009 | Reply

  921. Demotivational poster that seems to summarise the Bible quite well. (NSFW. It’s from /b/)

    blufindr | Aug 13, 2009 | Reply

  922. @pplr: As usual, you’re not addressing the actual point. The point was not “let’s rehash the whole rights issue.” The point is that you lied by mischaracterizing what I said about Big Mama. And now you’re doing it again. So you’re still lying. Scroll up to my August 10th post where I quoted both of us. Or to the July posts where the original comments were made.

    The only reason I brought her up (and all the other people whose rights were violated) was to counter your point that it doesn’t happen. You, OTOH, contend that I was using a “victim mentality.” Have you been lying for the cause for so long, that you don’t even know when you’re doing it any more?

    With Big Mama I think I said you had the weakest claim to saying rights were violated unless the sign was taken down after it was paid for (violation of contracting and/or speech rights).

    If you really want to argue about this, go check out the recent controversy (recent as in last week) over the ads put up by the Iowa Atheists & Freethinkers in Des Moines on the DART buses. Which were paid for, approved, put up, and then subsequently taken down. Exactly the same ad as the one Big Mama opposed. Oh.

    Advertising director Kirstin Baer-Harding admitted on air on channel 13 that taking them down was discriminatory. She was asked if they accept Christian ads, to which she responded “yes.” Ch 13 then asked “why isn’t that a double standard?” Her response? “uh, um, uh, let me think about that.”

    Bear in mind, this is the same woman who originally approved the ads.

    Also, Iowa governor Chet Culver had this to say about the situation: “I was disturbed personally…by the advertisement, I can understand why other Iowans were also disturbed by the message that it sent. But, we’ll see how it unfolds,”

    Telling atheists they are not alone disturbs him. Uh, huh.

    The ads are going back up now because DART got caught red-handed taking them down. Channel 13′s stories highlighted the issue, and many of us wrote or called them to complain. Since they’re already having a PR problem what with their drivers running over pedestrians lately, DART caved. At first they tried to get IAF to submit a “less offensive” ad, but IAF refused. So they’re stuck running the “offensive” ads or risking an even bigger PR problem.

    If you didn’t care for her protest then counter protest-both of you have free speech.

    I believe that’s exactly what I’m doing here. And look! The Jesus brigade showed up like clockwork to try and shout it down.

    Come up with what you say are lies and explain/prove it, is this just more assumptions?

    Why should he bother? It’s not like you respond when you’re in the wrong.

    @blufindr:
    He keeps doing that with the “don’t do this, answer like this, you are allowed this many words,” etc. I feel like he has control issues.

    Today’s Logical Fallacy: A wager is a wager, you know you’re making a bet when you choose to place one.

    Only if I accept your premise in this case. Which I do not. I submit that there is nothing upon which to wager. I don’t wager every morning on whether to put my foot on the floor in case there’s a monster under my bed. when I spill the salt I don’t make a wager about whether I should throw some over my shoulder for good luck. When I got my Bombay kitty I didn’t make a wager about whether she was bad luck, even though she’s all black. The idea of making a wager about superstition is absurd.

    Heidi | Aug 13, 2009 | Reply

  923. @Heidi: I have issues with premise 1. “A is A”. Hm, circular reasoning much?

    I like how all this is done without a posteriori proof. Granted, atheism, too, is done without a posteriori proof. But you’d think, before betting everything on one horse, that you’d try to find out if anyone else who made that bet won, don’t you?

    blufindr | Aug 13, 2009 | Reply

  924. Found this while searching the internet. It briefly describes a Christian’s experience, being in a situation where s/he was identified as an atheist, in a Christian setting.

    “There have rarely been times in my life that I have been ashamed of people that I call “brothers and sisters in Christ.” This was one of them.”

    blufindr | Aug 13, 2009 | Reply

  925. I’d like to say I’m surprised that is in reference to the recent SSA visit to the Creation Museum, but…

    PZ has a video up on Pharyngula of the kid who got kicked out taken right after it happened. Apparently the kid was pulled out of the exit line and told to leave. … ? Yeah. And then security tossed out a guy who wasn’t even with them, but was getting footage for a documentary.

    And now Ken Ham is mad that people (particularly PZ) took photos of the inside of the museum, and are telling everybody what it says in there. Like how they support the racist Hamite theory that the people of Africa are the cursed sons of Canaan. Or how there was no such things as Pangaea, and the planet was colonized by humans and animals riding on floating islands made from knocked down trees from the Great flood. Um.. okaaay.

    My favorite picture, though, was the one of PZ riding the saddled dinosaur. *snort*

    Heidi | Aug 13, 2009 | Reply

  926. @blufindr

    That demotivational poster is hysterical. Thanks for that. Here’s another one I really like:

    http://www.blog.joelx.com/christianity-demotivational-poster/1676/

    bobby | Aug 13, 2009 | Reply

  927. Or how about this one? Really cuts to the heart of the matter:

    http://www.religiouspeoplearefunny.com/post/2009/06/08/Motivational-Poster-Santa-and-Jesus.aspx

    bobby | Aug 13, 2009 | Reply

  928. Blind faith – because thinking is hard!

    lol.

    bobby | Aug 13, 2009 | Reply

  929. @Heidi: Yeah, it’s kinda sad.

    I dunno, I haven’t seen any atheist groups persecute Christians half as often (or half as vehemently) as Christians seem to prosecute atheists.

    @bobby: That one is great! I’ve got so many of them… Need to upload them.

    blufindr | Aug 13, 2009 | Reply

  930. To whom it may concern:

    A search using keyword “unbelievers”
    in any version of the christian,jewish
    or muslim bibles gives quite sobering
    results. A eyes open reading calls for
    unremitting inquisition! Does it occur
    to me to resent this? Believe it!

    proud kuffar | Aug 13, 2009 | Reply

  931. You’re right. Here’s the first that came up when I typed in unbelievers in the first online bible listed:

    Luke 12:46
    The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.

    bobby | Aug 13, 2009 | Reply

  932. Bobby:gives one to think,eh?

    proud kuffar | Aug 14, 2009 | Reply

  933. Well, yes. Now if only the pod people would start thinking. If they would just have a good look at their good book they’d see it isn’t so good. Perhaps that’s why they don’t look.

    bobby | Aug 14, 2009 | Reply

  934. Have you guys seen this video? It’s called “Converting an indian to christianity – don’t let the devil win” (seriously). I can’t tell if it’s a Poe or not, but it’s not funny, regardless. Beware, for there are staggering amounts of stupid in the video. Safeguard your IQ points. You have been warned.

    Heidi | Aug 14, 2009 | Reply

  935. I’d watch this.

    blufindr | Aug 14, 2009 | Reply

  936. Win joke.

    XD I’m still giggling about that.

    blufindr | Aug 15, 2009 | Reply

  937. Heh. You would think the Jedi and the cleric would have an advantage, being as how their woo actually works.

    Watched this earlier today. It’s Creationist Boy VenomFangX apologizing to the Internet for being a lying slimebag with no scruples. (Who needs honesty when you’ve got god?) He filed false DMCA charges against a YouTuber called Thunderf00t last year, because he didn’t like what Thunderf00t was saying in certain videos. The apology is his punishment in lieu of legal proceedings. I find it funny.

    Heidi | Aug 15, 2009 | Reply

  938. Interesting article. It compares the process of coming out gay to that of coming out atheist, and concludes that the latter appears to be more difficult.

    blufindr | Aug 15, 2009 | Reply

  939. Well I just want to make an announcement. My name is bobby and…well…I…I…I’m an atheist! There, I said it! And, oh yeah, I’m proud!

    bobby | Aug 15, 2009 | Reply

  940. Yeah, I’ve read a lot about the parallels over on Hemant’s site. As an atheist, I find it very easy to identify with what gay people go through. I think each group has some easier points and some harder ones. But in the end, we’re all being marginalized for not drinking the Kool-Aid.

    Heidi | Aug 15, 2009 | Reply

  941. Looks like some people “wagered” wrong. Hail Zeus!

    I find this comforting. Zeus is WAY cooler. He sends magic weapons and flying horses and stuff.

    Heidi | Aug 15, 2009 | Reply

  942. Ok, I was wrong before. The Belief-O-Matic on Beliefnet.com says I’m 100% secular humanist. I have Gene Roddenberry to thank for that.

    Heidi | Aug 15, 2009 | Reply

  943. I too scored 100% for secular humanist. I guess we’ll both be burning in the lake of fire.

    bobby | Aug 15, 2009 | Reply

  944. See you there, then.

    Heidi | Aug 15, 2009 | Reply

  945. Haha, save me a seat, I’m 100% secular humanist too.

    Though I think the boyfriend decided last night that I was more ignostic than outright atheist. :P

    blufindr | Aug 15, 2009 | Reply

  946. Zeus kicks ass. Believe it!

    proud kuffar | Aug 15, 2009 | Reply

  947. Found a Jesus&Mo strip re: religious persecution. Hah!

    blufindr | Aug 16, 2009 | Reply

  948. Blufindr

    It seemed like you were accusing me of using emotional blackmail for a bit then. Though both I and Fundamentalists are religious it is a bad idea to hold one of us responsible for the others’ actions.

    When I talked about “more than” Stalin (even excluded him) and someone else started talking to me about what I supposedly said about Stalin that was a pretty illogical right from the start.

    Heidi

    Considering my voice is as load or quiet here as yours I haven’t been trying to shout you down here-trying to do so would be likely involve spamming and I have done that. You’re appear assuming the worst about my comments even when it doesn’t match what I’ve done.

    About victim mentality, note where I said I didn’t think discrimination was the “norm”. The case in Iowa appears to be discrimination and I’m not denying it happens, just the level you seem to assume it does.

    Also if you can see discrimination there well enough to recognize it there you should be able to see it well enough to recognize (or have “found”) it here.

    pplr | Aug 16, 2009 | Reply

  949. You never address the actual subject in your comments to me, pplr. Why is that? Perhaps because you know damned well you’re in the wrong, and you’re trying to backpedal?

    Let’s be VERY clear, here. Your blatant misrepresentation of what I said was:

    Its a good thing for Heidi you missed when she went through explaining how badly atheists are treated-including where she pointed to what a black lady was saying. The general premise of that is arguably “victim mentality” if you see things that way.

    This is the statement with which I have a problem, and it is the one we are discussing. Please try to stick with that one as the main subject. The reason I have a problem with that statement is that (as I have said multiple times now) my comments regarding discrimination were in response to your statement that “you really aren’t that badly off in terms of rights.” (And several similar statements that preceded it.) I corrected your less-than-accurate assumption.

    Now please explain how correcting you conveys a victim mentality or admit to your dishonest tactics.

    As for your change of subject, I do recognize discrimination very well. You’re not experiencing it. No matter how badly you wish it were so, and no matter how many times you repeat yourself, you’re not being discriminated against.

    dis⋅crim⋅i⋅na⋅tion
    (relevant definition):
    treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

    You’re being laughed at and made fun of because you’re acting like an ass. Are People Who Act Like Asses a protected group under the Civil Rights Act? Or any other standard of judgment you care to impose? Should somebody start a People Who Act Like Asses Awareness campaign? Or should you maybe come to the realization that if you’re acting like an ass, you’re going to be treated like one?

    No one has made ANY statements regarding all people in your belief group, other than to say that we disagree with you on the merits of belief without evidence. I think it’s a dangerous, horrible thing. In fact, I believe I said there is nothing that can be applied across the board about all people who call themselves christians, other than the fact that they call themselves that (believing without evidence notwithstanding). Yes, I’m quite sure I said that. Scroll up.

    Heidi | Aug 16, 2009 | Reply

  950. @blufindr

    Great cartoon, and very appropriate to the conversation that follows it, eh?

    @Heidi

    Just when we thought it was safe to go back in the water…lol. I’m pretty sure he wears his underpants on his head.

    bobby | Aug 16, 2009 | Reply

  951. dun-dun…

    ~~~~~~~/\~~~~~~~~

    dun-dun….

    Maybe we can petition the cartoonist to make it Jesus, Mo and pplr for a few weeks. It could be like when Moses did a few guest shots.

    Heidi | Aug 16, 2009 | Reply

  952. I would have thought he has enough jesus points by now but apparently not, that imbecile.

    (there, maybe that will help)

    bobby | Aug 16, 2009 | Reply

  953. I was fired by a “christian” employer after they found out I was an atheist. I filed a complaint with the state and at the first hearing, they had 6 people there plus their two attorneys and the HR person, all “christians” and they all lied under oath. I was there by myself, no attorney, and won. They appealed, lied some more, and I won again. It took me two years and listening to a LOT of their lying under oath, but I beat those bastards.

    Proud Atheist | Aug 16, 2009 | Reply

  954. See, this is what I keep saying. Based on my experience, and now yours. Christians in general have no qualms about lying when they believe they’re doing in defence of their superstition. In fact, it seems to be a requirement. Never trust a Christian!

    bobby | Aug 16, 2009 | Reply

  955. I just came across a blog on diamond buying. I think it must be a Christian blog. I quote:

    When buying diamonds you must always remember the 4 C’s: Carat weight, Color and Cut.

    doh!

    bobby | Aug 16, 2009 | Reply

  956. this is great. keep putting these kinds of blogs out there so people can realize how stupid their superstitions are.

    Josh | Aug 16, 2009 | Reply

  957. That’s excellent, Proud Atheist. (The winning, not the getting fired.) Congratulations.

    Heidi | Aug 16, 2009 | Reply

  958. @bobby: Actually, I’m ethically opposed against diamonds, too. :P

    Hoo boy. Let the flaming begin…

    blufindr | Aug 17, 2009 | Reply

  959. No flaming, I reserve that for people I don’t like. :-)

    However…As someone who has purchased many, many diamonds over the years, I know to deal only with reputable people who don’t buy conflict diamonds. They don’t get through to the wholesale market in Belgium, or so I’m told, and that’s where the people I use get theirs.

    bobby | Aug 17, 2009 | Reply

  960. @bobby: Hah, awesome.

    I’ve restricted myself to either buying estate jewellery, or simply not buying anything with diamonds. The way I see it, diamonds are muy overpriced, anyway.

    blufindr | Aug 17, 2009 | Reply

  961. Well, I know I won’t be buying any conflict diamonds. Or any other diamonds. Or pretty much anything else in a jewelry store. Expensive jewelry is not my thing, nor is it in my price range.

    Plus the whole DeBoers (sp?) engagement ring = 2 months salary thing pisses me off. Who the hell wants to walk around with 2 months worth of pay on their hand? And why? Just because the diamond people told you that you have to spend that much? Are they going to replace it if I get mugged? *pfft*

    Heidi | Aug 17, 2009 | Reply

  962. @Heidi: De Beers. And yes, the boyfriend and I were discussing this way back. We’re in agreement on this: De Beers is the reason diamond prices are jacked so high.

    Consider this: If you get a diamond now, even with certified papers and the like, you are extremely unlikely to recover your expenses unless you are very prudent at playing the jewellery game.

    And besides, what kind of woman or man wants to begin a new life with a new spouse in the financial red? Bri (the boyfriend) and I are perfectly willing to have tanzanite, sapphire, ruby, alexandrite… hundreds, hundreds of beautiful shiny rocks, that are a fraction of the price, and way more unique than what everyone else is wearing, anyway.

    blufindr | Aug 17, 2009 | Reply

  963. Apropos.

    blufindr | Aug 17, 2009 | Reply

  964. I’m kind of fond of moonstones, too. Or opals. Aventurine is pretty, too. Diamonds are overrated. They’re pretty, but not proportionately to their cost.

    I guess the Honduran children aren’t holy enough. They probably didn’t listen to the missionaries.

    Heidi | Aug 17, 2009 | Reply

  965. @Heidi: I have found so many pretty rings on Etsy, few of them actually featuring diamonds (having some as accents, but that’s about it), and most being under $500! That’s really fantastic.

    Bri and I have decided on titanium rings (since gold, platinum et al are too expensive, and silver tarnishes). They’re cheap, they’re practical, and they look great.

    I actually posed the question to Yahoo! Answers a couple of months ago, about the omni-forgiving thing (not sure what the proper term is…). Apparently, God is willing to forgive — but you have to ask for it. Great. So he loves us so much, he’ll doom us for not wanting to grovel to his non-existence. Good to know.

    blufindr | Aug 18, 2009 | Reply

  966. Take this, for example. What a pretty stone! And really, an engagement ring for that price? That’s incredible.

    Mind, my brother paid in the 5-digit range for his wife’s engagement ring. But that’s because he has more money than sense. :|

    blufindr | Aug 18, 2009 | Reply

  967. Also, LOL! Found that a long time ago, rediscovered it while going through my image dump folders on my computer. Brilliant, no?

    Oh, and if that doesn’t work, here: http://www.mrwiggleslovesyou.com/rehab521.html

    blufindr | Aug 18, 2009 | Reply

  968. That is pretty. Oddly, I just read this on another ring there:

    *Australian Customs Service prohibits the importation of silver and gold jewelry, will not ship jewelry to Australia*

    Is that true? If it is, I guess it’s good you’re thinking titanium if you want it shipped from outside the country. :-(

    I’m kind of weirded out by the cake rings on the first page.

    Heidi | Aug 18, 2009 | Reply

  969. Again, my html skills are fail-tastic first thing in the morning…

    Maybe pplr is god. He’s other people, and he seems to be taking this whole no god thing personally.

    Heidi | Aug 18, 2009 | Reply

  970. This, too.

    Also, a little light humour.

    blufindr | Aug 18, 2009 | Reply

  971. @Heidi: Har. Fair point. :P

    No, Brian’s an American. Depending on how things go, I’ll be going up to him — either for college, or after it.

    That topaz ring is gorgeous, and those cake rings are weird. o_O

    Actually, given that we met through Physics-related blather, we were considering this. It’s very much pricey, but it’s also very pretty. So, I dunno.

    blufindr | Aug 18, 2009 | Reply

  972. Ooh, I really like the physics ring! And if you’re going to spend a lot, at least there’s a significance with it. Very cool.

    I need to show that site to my daughter. She makes hemp jewelry and wants to sell it.

    Disturbing Church Sign … And yet it explains everything.

    Heidi | Aug 18, 2009 | Reply

  973. @blufindr: Are you anywhere near Melbourne? They’re holding the 2010 Atheist Global Convention there in March. Richard Dawkins is going to speak, and so is PZ Myers.

    http://www.atheistconvention.org.au/

    Sounds pretty cool for people close enough to go.

    Heidi | Aug 18, 2009 | Reply

  974. Has anyone else seen the Answers in Genesis post from the Creation Museum guy about the recent SSA visit?

    You can see a blog post about it on Pharyngula, or you can go straight to AiG and see it there.

    Notice how Hammy the Creationist photographed license plates and bumper stickers in the parking lot.

    Now notice how he says “Actually, I believe some of these messages really do reflect what the devil offered Adam and Eve in Genesis 3, “you shall become as gods . . . .””

    Look back at the photos. Notice what the devil is offering. It almost makes me wish this garbage were true, because it sounds like this devil fellow is a pretty decent guy. The desert cults are worshiping the wrong guy. Thank you Ken Ham for confirming my belief that you people read your won story wrong. God is the evil one. The other guy’s ok.

    Heidi | Aug 18, 2009 | Reply

  975. There is a problem problem with your idea that atheists have done abominable things as well (such as Oppenheimer and the invention of the bomb) and therefore you could make a similar list based on the the stupidity or villainy of Atheists as well. Every person on this list behaved stupidly, or violently, because of their religious beliefs, Oppenheimer however, did not make the bomb because he was an Atheist. His lack of faith played no role whatsoever. When Atheists do stupid or criminal things it is because humans do stupid or criminal things. I don’t know of any Atheist who has ever killed because of the fact that they don’t believe in God.

    “But wait!” you say, “what about Stalin, or Mao?” Both did horrific things, and killed a lot of people, and both were Atheists. However neither killed in an effort to spread Atheism, but rather because of a desire for power. Even when Stalin was killing the clergy, it wasn’t because they were religious that he killed them, but because the church posed a threat to his power.

    linus bern | Aug 19, 2009 | Reply

  976. @Heidi: Arh, good to know they can acknowledge it at least. I’m still disturbed as heck.

    I am actually about an hour from Melbourne. I’ve never heard of that before! Depending on how things go, if I’m still available in March (depending on university start times and that), I may attend. Thanks!

    Lawd. “You shall become as Gods”. Um, what about the self-righteous members of religion (generalising, here), who believe they have the moral authority to dictate what others do and do not do? Is that not taking on a Godly role?

    By that, I don’t mean just “Spreading the word of the Lord” (though that’s trouble enough). I mean actually preventing people from doing things, through moral or Biblical protest. Some recent examples: gay marriage; abortions; the teaching of evolution; sex-ed.

    On that note, does anyone else find it absolutely bizarre that Xtians tend to stick to only the parts of the Bible that suit their purpose? Mind, I suppose the same can be said of Bri, who chooses to turn a blind eye to all of the Old Testament. ::shrugs:: That being said, he’s not particularly devout, anyhow.

    @linus: A little late to the party, dear. ;) I think the other two have decided to bugger off.

    ——

    On a tangent: How on earth did my trackback show up here? I only just noticed it. o_O

    blufindr | Aug 19, 2009 | Reply

  977. I just saw one of the wacko Christian blogs go by in the cycle with an article claiming that there’s a new study which proves that religious rites increase brain activity in positive ways.

    You gotta admit they have a sense of humor.

    bobby | Aug 19, 2009 | Reply

  978. Heidi

    “Now please explain how correcting you conveys a victim mentality or admit to your dishonest tactics.”

    Easy, you’re stuck in the ‘I’m standing up for my “rights”‘ mentality so much you don’t recognize the norm in this nation is that your rights are respected and enforced.

    “As for your change of subject, I do recognize discrimination very well. You’re not experiencing it. No matter how badly you wish it were so, and no matter how many times you repeat yourself, you’re not being discriminated against.”

    I believe “podlings” or something like it was the latest general insult you used. Pointing out the flaws in your arguments, version of history, and so on isn’t being an “ass”, it is refusing to go with the local group-think. And there are people here (including you at times) who made comments that are generally anti-religious/intolerant.

    Also, Dawkins is about as worth listening to as Rush Limbaugh.

    Blufindr

    I’ve been getting busier than usual these last 2 weeks and on top of that my sister from out of town (as opposed to in) is visiting w. fiance so I’ve got more competing for my time.

    What did fellow GSA people say (especially if they read through this)?

    Linus

    Suggest you start at the wiki links on “state atheism”. Don’t dodge that torture (different wiki link) was used to encourage people to become atheists like Heidi did.

    pplr | Aug 19, 2009 | Reply

  979. @Linus: Exactly.

    @blufindr: Oh, cool! I know Australia’s huge like the US, but I was hoping you’d be close enough if you wanted to/were able to go.

    Hemant posted today that Laurie Higgins, director of the Illinois Family Institute, wrote to the high school where he teaches math, and tried to get him fired. This because he was critical of her group in his blog. Apparently, she believes atheists shouldn’t be teaching children, and that parents have a right not to have their children in classes taught by atheists. This is regardless of the fact that she admits he’s never discussed his views in the classroom.

    Personally, I’d be happy to have Hemant teaching my kids math. And I wouldn’t be trying to play god with someone’s job.

    On that note, does anyone else find it absolutely bizarre that Xtians tend to stick to only the parts of the Bible that suit their purpose?

    Yes. But of course the parts they don’t like, and the parts that are demonstrably wrong are just metaphor. The rest is Really Really True™!

    I think the other two have decided to bugger off.

    pplr is never going to leave until he gets the Last Word. If we don’t STFU and agree with him, he’s going to be here whining in another ten years. (See below.)

    @pplr:
    Easy, you’re stuck in the ‘I’m standing up for my “rights”‘ mentality so much you don’t recognize the norm in this nation is that your rights are respected and enforced.

    So in your opinion I should have just shut up and agreed with you that atheists aren’t discriminated against, rather than correcting your misconception. Ok, I’m glad we got that cleared up. Anyone who doesn’t agree with you and your demonstrably wrong beliefs needs to STFU. Who is the bigot, again?

    I believe “podlings” or something like it was the latest general insult you used.

    Yeah, that was a good one, wasn’t it?

    And there are people here (including you at times) who made comments that are generally anti-religious/intolerant.

    Yep. I have negatively described blind belief without supporting, and in the face of contrary evidence. I will continue to describe it negatively, and I will not quietly tolerate willful ignorance. I never said I was tolerant of religion, and I don’t ever intend to be. A person has every right to believe any nonsense they like. But they don’t have the right to expect me to agree that yes, Xenu really dropped evil alien spirits in the volcanoes. Now, given that we were speaking of discrimination, not intolerance, how am I infringing upon your rights, exactly? You keep believing your evidence-free nonsense, and I’ll keep believing you’re delusional.

    Heidi | Aug 19, 2009 | Reply

  980. @pplr: Apologies. I was unaware you had guests.

    GSA people took one look at the sheer number of comments, snorted, and decided to quit reading.

    Re: standing up for rights: I had a discussion with Brian (my partner, in case you missed the memo) some time ago. I was (and still am) of the opinion that atheists are discriminated against, for a few reasons, because we are not able to publicise our atheism. As previously noted, past attempts to give atheism the same kind of publicity that Xtianity has enjoyed for millenia are met with outrage and self-righteous indignance. Brian pointed out that there have been cases of door-to-door atheism, but that in these cases, they have been done primarily to annoy. But I, and many other atheists I know, would gladly volunteer my time to spread the message of non-belief. Why should we be kept hidden away like crazy uncle Ezekiel? (Kudos if you get this reference. I don’t even remember where it’s from exactly, it just feels relevant)

    Of course, as soon as atheists band together and start actually spreading our (non-)message, we’ll probbaly get bashed for being “insensitive” or some similar diatribe. It’s happened.

    @Heidi: Frankly, I don’t care whether Christians, atheists, fundies, Muslims, Wiccans, dance-around-a-maypolists, or green aliens from Mars teach my children. If my scions are happy and comfortable with their teacher, and said teacher is not enforcing beliefs on my sproglings, I couldn’t care less.

    That being said, Bri and I have agreed (already!) that we’d prefer a secular school for our kids. So… ::shrugs::

    ——

    On another note about the Bible thing, lookie what I found. Turns out, marriage is the last legal form of slavery. And the best part, it’s completely okay by the Bible. Who’da thunk that?

    blufindr | Aug 19, 2009 | Reply

  981. @blufindr: Ack, that was creepy! Gotta love how PZ tells it like it is, though.

    Heidi | Aug 19, 2009 | Reply

  982. This guy just won teh internets.

    Heidi | Aug 19, 2009 | Reply

  983. @pplr

    So, shit for brains, you’re back. No surprise there. Let’s get a couple of things straight. No one has “dodged” anything here except you, who convieniently ignore anything you can’t refute. Your continued hypocrisy is getting old real fast.

    As for the insults, they’re far less than your antics deserve, you should count yourself lucky. No one wants you here, you’re imposing yourself on people who are discussing the stupidity of religion. You don’t have to like it, butthead, no one here gives a damn what you think. If you can’t stand the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen, to paraphrase Harry Truman.

    You’re not going to get the last word. What you WILL get is a lot more abuse if you choose to stay. That’s a promise from me to you, you ignorant turd.

    bobby | Aug 19, 2009 | Reply

  984. OK Guys, I’m closing the comments on this article. I’ve just added a fresh list to the site, and you can carry on there.

    Hittman | Aug 19, 2009 | Reply

9 Trackback(s)

  1. Jun 28, 2009: from The story of my life » Blog Archive » Arguments are fun, fun, fun.
  2. Jul 16, 2009: from Adam R Sweet (celticagent) 's status on Thursday, 16-Jul-09 23:40:14 UTC - Identi.ca
  3. Jul 16, 2009: from More Things Atheists Don’t Do « AnyEveryNot
  4. Aug 2, 2009: from Lousy Canuck » Sunday Atheist Readings
  5. Mar 25, 2010: from My views on Religion and War(s)
  6. May 30, 2010: from Ainda Ateísmo « O Indivíduo
  7. Jun 7, 2010: from What is your view on the afterlife?
  8. Jun 15, 2010: from Assortment « Cubik's Rube
  9. Jan 16, 2012: from What is atheism by Atheism - Pearltrees

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.