"a 2002 law that stresses God's role in Kentucky's homeland security alongside the military, police agencies and health departments."

What a crock.

As a knuckle-dragging, troglodyte small-government conservative, I would prefer there not be a Kentucky Office of Homeland Security at all.

Lately all these atheists with their constant complaining are becoming a real pain in the ass.

Bitchin' about this, bitchin' about that -- just shut-up.

Amen.

Funny....that's what I said about religeous people...........except for the amen part.......

What's your problem with atheists, Chrissy? Pissed because you never hear "Oh God! Oh God! Oh God!" during your marmot-like frenzied trysts?

**** Lately all these atheists with their constant complaining are becoming a real pain in the ass.
Bitchin' about this, bitchin' about that -- just shut-up.
.....#3 | Posted by CalifChris ****

.......you mean like the Christian right with their abortion/gay rights mantra ?..........

........I know how you feel..........

I hope you are joking CalifChris, as that is such a stupid statement. How about you people keep your gods out of the people's government and there wont be a problem.

When you cater to only one religion the rest of us have a right to be pissed off about it.

Lately all these atheists with their constant complaining are becoming a real pain in the ass.

Bitchin' about this, bitchin' about that -- just shut-up.

Amen.

Making up for the last few thousand years of theist domination.

The creator of the universe was not available for comment...

"The creator of the universe was not available for comment..."

She was getting her hair done. The First Seraph is taking her calls. herm

"a 2002 law that stresses God's role in Kentucky's homeland security alongside the military, police agencies and health departments."

I wonder what that big galoot looks like in a uniform?

She was getting her hair done. The First Seraph is taking her calls. sperm

#11 | Posted by sperm at 2008-12-03 07:30 PM

I think he was off duty back in 2001, wasn't he? Must have been vacationing in that alternate universe his cousin Vinnie created.

"a 2002 law that stresses God's role in Kentucky's homeland security alongside the military, police agencies and health departments."

OK, but when was the last time he showed up for work?

She was getting her hair done. The First Seraph is taking her calls. sperm

#11 | Posted by sperm at 2008-12-03 07:30 PM

WTF "SPERM" now thats funny.

#11 | Posted by sperm at 2008-12-03 07:30 PM

WTF "SPERM" now thats funny.

#15 | Posted by Razor

Almost as funny as panchovilla demonstrating he can spell "fuck" over and over correctly. Pop another Xanex and chill out...

#16 | Posted by panchovilla

Chillax, man.

Now why don't you shut the fuck up?

#16 | Posted by panchovilla

Whoa!!! Such animosity... but I am curious.. when was the last time a religious nut bombed an abortion clinic? Cause I haven't heard any reports of that in a very long time... and it's not right even when it did/does happen

and let me tell you I am pretty sure that most Baptists would LOVE to take on the Catholic law of excommunication just one time, when it comes to those nut jobs from Westboro Baptist in Kansas and any others that are just like them...

The rest... well I am sorry people feel that way about Christianity and I am pretty sure that people that act in such manners are not really Christian, since it goes against the teachings...

And I believe that you have to be pretty open minded to believe in and have faith in something that cannot be physically proven...

"fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck"
"Now why don't you shut the fuck up?"
#16 | Posted by panchovilla

Outstanding I have never been in the presence of such knowledge coupled with an equally vast understanding and command of the English language...

Chillax, man.

#18 | Posted by Kinger at 2008-12-04 03:05 PM | Reply |

The hypocrisy of these fruitcakes' statements make me boil...it's as if they are blind to the extremes of their religion and the ridiculous aspect of the whole premise.

____________________

"""The rest... well I am sorry people feel that way about Christianity and I am pretty sure that people that act in such manners are not really Christian, since it goes against the teachings..."""

Interesting statement. It would mean that approximately 99% of all of those proclaiming to be christian are in fact, not.

"""And I believe that you have to be pretty open minded to believe in and have faith in something that cannot be physically proven..."""

It's not an open mind that leads to total faith, it's fear of the unknown, fear of questions that can't be answered, fear of self-responsibility, fear of actually being on your own, the need to belong to some type of collective, the list is long, but open mindedness is not the driver. If it were, the faith's ideology would reflect it.

As a more substantive reply to Pancho's incredible hostility:

I find it amusing you rail on religious extremists (Christians, in thise case) while at the same time projecting extremist atheist philosophies onto somebody else. You don't see how hypocritical that is?

"And I believe that you have to be pretty open minded to believe in and have faith in something that cannot be physically proven..."
Posted by k8blujay

Any more open minded and your brains will start leaking out. There are two types of people involved in religion. The type who view it as a path to wealth and power, and the nimrods who make it possible for them.

"I am pretty sure that people that act in such manners are not really Christian, since it goes against the teachings..."

- Yep, that's christianity's biggest issue... not nearly enough christians. Ruins it for everyone, even the two actual christians there are left in the world (Bob and Shela).

Besides, Who IS Chris anyway??

#3 | Posted by CalifChris

Lately it's occured to me that the only difference between Christine and Murphy is how they claim they voted in the most recent election.

Any more open minded and your brains will start leaking out. There are two types of people involved in religion. The type who view it as a path to wealth and power, and the nimrods who make it possible for them.

#23 | Posted by bobdobbs

"You'll pay to know what you think."

Salvation guaranteed or TRIPLE your money back!

Chillax, man.

Salvation guaranteed or TRIPLE your money back!
#28 | Posted by bobdobbs

I see that it's more than just a handle. Nice work.

Any more open minded and your brains will start leaking out.
>like I haven't heard that one before :/

There are two types of people involved in religion. The type who view it as a path to wealth and power, and the nimrods who make it possible for them.

>Hmmm well I beg to differ on that not everyone worships in the Crystal Cathedral or sends money to the "Christian" preachers on TV... Contrary to your belief some people actually use religion to explain the unexplainable and use the doctrine (whether for good or bad) as a way to live a prosperous life (which does not equate to riches and wealth). Some just read their scriptures/writings, meditate/pray on them and try to live accordingly and may or may not ever step foot into a Church building.

#23 | Posted by bobdobbs

"fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck"
"Now why don't you shut the fuck up?"
#16 | Posted by panchovilla

Outstanding I have never been in the presence of such knowledge coupled with an equally vast understanding and command of the English language...

I think he made alot more sense when he just said fuck a whole bunch.

Personal lack of originality aside,(my own)
modeling your personal doctrine on the superstitions of a desert tribe is not really (IMHO) a rational choice. But, I have no issue with someone who makes their decision to live by irrational beliefs a personal, private affair. It is when people try to impose those beliefs on others, and have their religious beliefs written into law that we have an issue.

Religion, much like masturbation, should be kept a private affair. It may make you feel good, but is likely to cause offense to others. The punishments for doing either publicly should be similar.

Honestly, I think that everyone is going to feel like their beliefs are being imposed upon... whether you are Christian, Muslim, Atheist and the list goes on... Though I see what you mean... I may not agree with it, but I see.

"Honestly, I think that everyone is going to feel like their beliefs are being imposed upon... whether you are Christian, Muslim, Atheist and the list goes on..."

#35 | Posted by k8blujay

Some people only need to see an expression of an opposite belief to start crying for penalties similar to that of indecent exposure.

It screams of insecurity.

Substitute "God" with "Allah" in that law, and I'm sure a whole different group will be complaining.

I blame this whole mess on President U.S. Grant for declaring Christmas a National Holiday. Too bad the Johnny Rebs didn't shoot his ass at Bull Run.

What do you think Doc?

The hypocrisy of these fruitcakes' statements make me boil...it's as if they are blind to the extremes of their religion and the ridiculous aspect of the whole premise.

They aren't blind to the extremes they just know that that's what they are. The extreme. They don't castigate their entire religion because a few wacko's do stupid shit in the name of Christianity. You, on the other hand, lash out at all of Christianity because of these few and far between acts of idiocy. And I thought libs were supposed to be above painting with such a large brush.

God is going to help with Kentucky's Homeland Security Department?

Oh Yeah?

Like he did with New York on 9/11?????

How ironic is that?

As I recall, the US got through WWI, Great Depression, Dust Bowl,WWII, Korea,numerous disasters and catastrophes
before "God" was brought into it in the late 1950's. I don't see how invoking the Almighty has helped, if at all. In WWII, the Nazi SS wore,inscribed on their uniform belt buckles(in German of course),"God is with us". What happened to them is history. Draw your own conclusion!!!!!!

My conclusion is that you get your info from atheist websites, instead of history books. Gott Mitt Uns (God With Us) was a battle cry of the Germans since the 30 Years' War. And it was on Wehrmacht belt buckles, NOT SS belts, which featured the phrase "My Honor Is Loyalty".

Good thing I was here, eh? Nice invocation of Godwin's Law, though.

Regardless, "In God We Trust" is scary if for no other reason than the majority of Americans at this point mistakingly believe the phrase was there since our countries inception, as part of the founders' credo.

Also, Is the use of the word 'homeland' by the Nazi's and our recent use of it (what was wrong with the 'Defense' Dept?) a coincedence? It worked well as patriotic propaganda then- why wouldn't it now?

Come to think of it, "My Honor Is Loyalty" is kinda close to "United We Stand" or " If Your're Not With Us, You're with the Terrorists" - both of which was brought out by the administration of the grandson of Prescott Bush.

More Godwin's Law?

"And I believe that you have to be pretty open minded to believe in and have faith in something that cannot be physically proven..."

i'm sorry, but "open-minded" really is NOT the word for it.

but what ever it is keep you religion to yourselves.

"Hmmm well I beg to differ on that not everyone worships in the Crystal Cathedral or sends money to the "Christian" preachers on TV... Contrary to your belief some people actually use religion to explain the unexplainable and use the doctrine (whether for good or bad) as a way to live a prosperous life (which does not equate to riches and wealth). Some just read their scriptures/writings, meditate/pray on them and try to live accordingly and may or may not ever step foot into a Church building."

then why are you here on a political board in a political thread blabbing about it, must you defend your so-called faith? ...then you have none. perhaps you are trying to invent it. good luck with that, [but] it is a free country.

"You, on the other hand, lash out at all of Christianity because of these few and far between acts of idiocy."

takes more than a few of you to cause both the Alcohol and Drug Prohibition, now doesn't it?

here's a few quotes from those with blood in their hands (do have this blood on your hands today? THEN DO SOMETHING! STOP IT!):
On November 11, 1918, Prohibition, the Eighteenth Amendment, took effect on January 20, 1920:

Reverend A. C. Bane declared the nation, "redeemed by prohibition", "America will 'go over the top' in humanity's greatest battle... struggling with the same age-long foe, we will go forth with the spirit of the missionary and the crusader to help drive the demon of drink from all civilization."

Reverend Sam Small in 1917, spoke these powerful words to the Washington, D. C. Anti‑saloon League's convention, "...you and I may proudly expect to see this America of ours, victorious and Christianized, become not only the savior but the model and the monitor of the reconstructed civilization of the world in the future."

The Reverend Josiah Strong, coeditor of the magazine 'The Gospel of the Kingdom', in 1914, wrote, "Personal Liberty is at last an uncrowned king, with no one to do him reverence. ...We are no longer frightened by that ancient bogey...."

First Lady Nancy Reagan said, "Any user of illicit drugs is an accomplice to murder."

Former U. S. government drug czar William Bennett said, "It [drug abuse] is a product of the Great Deceiver.... We need to bring these people in need the God who heals."

all you do is WAR. WAR. WAR. murderers! family destroyers! torturers!

in times of peace the WARLIKE man attacks himself.

only a few of you... GET A CLUE!

In back of all the animosity against Christianity are guilty consciences. The ranting and raving here is nothing more than "kicking against the goads."

And while plugging your ears and yelling, "La la la la la, F'ing this, and F'ing that...." may aid you in blocking out what God has said, nevertheless the foments of your guilty conscience are a clear sign against you. You cannot sublimate the truth. What your mind has determined to be false, to the contrary your troubled conscience expresses itself in a rage born of guilt. To be sure, your rantings and ravings display you as condemned already!

God should go back to where he came from: people's imaginations; and stay out of our government. The "deity" is nothing but an imaginary deaf, dumb, impotent mute for people with a vivid imagination and not enough brains for much else.

In back of all the animosity against Christianity are guilty consciences. The ranting and raving here is nothing more than "kicking against the goads."

And while plugging your ears and yelling, "La la la la la, F'ing this, and F'ing that...." may aid you in blocking out what God has said, nevertheless the foments of your guilty conscience are a clear sign against you. You cannot sublimate the truth. What your mind has determined to be false, to the contrary your troubled conscience expresses itself in a rage born of guilt. To be sure, your rantings and ravings display you as condemned already!

#47 | Posted by TheOneBS at 2008-12-05 07:26 AM |

Sounds like your trying to project your own guilty conscience (on being a pious hypocrite and false prophet of imaginary beings) on to the rational who are doing just fine without your imaginary despicable, blood thirsty, tyrant of a deity: the almighty invisible sky daddy you refer to as "god".

If you need these delusions to get you thru your life, I pity you. Too weak for logic, reason and evidence that you have to buy into someone else's reality and myths and fables created by man. Then the "believer" always acts all righteous and superior strutting around like a peacock proclaiming that everyone else (regardless of what they claim) really believes the same b.s. as you, sad.

See, this isn't a question about Christianity or Atheism. This is about The Constitution. And this is Constitutionally wrong. Frankly I think any American citizen should consider it his patriotic duty to point out this obtuse violation of what was a fundamental tenant of The Constitution. However this is open to some interpretation, as it is only the national congress which is restricted but the BoR. So, actually, is it? It's a question of states rights. However I personally believe that the founding fathers would have agreed with me that this is a problem.

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

I honestly do love my country. Which is why I try to give it the respect it deserves by arguing nonstop over minutae (except this is actually pretty big) :)

However this is open to some interpretation, as it is only the national congress which is restricted but the BoR. So, actually, is it? It's a question of states rights.
#50 | Posted by Postscript624

State constitutions can not contradict our federal constitution.

Evolutionary theory explains such characteristics as "hunger pangs," and the feeling we experience as "thirst" as adaptive characteristics. At some point in our evolutionary past, our distant ancestors were able to move out of the pond or mud and survive on their own. Moving away from the source, however, nutrients and water were still needed to sustain life, and unless an organism has some built-in indicator to signal its immediate need for food and water, the organism will soon perish.

The sensations of hunger and thirst are adaptive characteristics which evolved over time, allowing organisms to become mobile rather than fixed to a food and water source.

Interesting, hunger and thirst pangs point to something beyond the organism experiencing those pangs. They point to a "source" needed for survival. To be sure, if food or water were not needed by an organism to survive, then the sensation of hunger or thirst would not have evolved. I mean, why the need to "feel" hungry unless the organism needed food? Why the need to "feel" thirsty unless the organism needed water? Hunger and thirst are thus adaptive responses which direct the organism to something outside itself, something needed by the organism.

You could say it another way: The existence of hunger pangs and thirst pangs point to something concrete....something that can satisfy the hunger and quench the thirst. In a word, the sensations of hunger and thirst are themselves indicators that such things as food and water exist.

Hunger points to food. Thirst points to water.

But where did that other adaptive characteristic come from and why did it evolve in us...the one found in all cultures and all human beings? Where did this "felt need feeling" for something beyond us come from?...that feeling human beings seek to satisfy with things deemed religious? And what does that feeling really point to?

If the "feeling" of hunger points to the existence of food...If the "feeling" of thirst points to the existence of water....what does this "other" feeling we have point to?

People who dismiss this feeling as "imaginary", or who dismiss the existence of that certain "something" to which the feeling points,...the same people who ridicule these as the "vain imaginations" or "inventions" of the ignorant and gullible, these are the same people who are the true idiots, and no doubt the stupidest people in the world.

"what does this "other" feeling we have point to?"

schizophrenia

That "feeling" for things religious that your speaking of is easily explained. It's conditioned by our environment. It's simple minded that just because you have those "feelings" then everyone else must have them too. False logic. I don't have those "feelings". Babies don't have those "feelings", they're taught those "feelings" by their surrounding environment (be it their culture or their family).

If you were born in the Middle East you may have strong "feelings" about Muhhamed. If you were born in Asia you may have "feelings" about Buddha. If you were born in the US you may have "feelings" about Jesus. If you were born in Utah you may have "feelings" about the teachings of Joseph Smith.

We should realize the source of those "feelings". They are coming from our culture and conditioning (they're coming from man) not from some invisible almighty spirit in the sky.

If you lived a few thousand years ago you might have "feelings" about Zeus. Does that indicate that Zeus exists?

to keep god off the pages of legal law & constitutional paper is probably a really bright idea...

the "hunger" for god is simple enough to follow, though...

"There is no mystery to finding God: just follow the Sound back to the divine Voice back home. Could anything be easier?"

(Sound = Tinnitus?:>)

We should realize the source of those "feelings". They are coming from our culture and conditioning (they're coming from man) not from some invisible almighty spirit in the sky.

#54 | Posted by imadallasguy

Sorry dallusguy, but that doesn't explain it. Why is it a universal...across cultures...and across the millenia...that human beings are religious? One does not have a strong "feeling" for Allah because one is from the middle east. You're putting the cart before the horse. People in the middle east attempt to satisfy the feeling for God with their religion called Islam. Religion is universal in the human species. Dismissing it as cultural conditioning is bogus. Explain why all cultures and times have some kind of concept of the divine (religion). Simply pointing to the religion itself and calling it "cultural conditioning" is back-asswards.

And yes, you have those feelings too. You just use your own personal Islam to try and fill that void. Let me guess, are you an environmentalist by chance? Perhaps a PETA advocate? Maybe you worship the almighty Cannabis plant? Or maybe it's some social cause that is the center of your universe?

You too are religious. You just don't recognize your devotion as a religion.

I'm an atheist. How do you explain that?

ooops did that just blow your whole theory out of the water?

You're an atheist because you're a rebel. There's just something you don't like about the idea of God (hence your vitriole against God). It threatens you in some way. You're simply shaking your fist at something that supposedly is unreal to you. Why get so bothered dallasguy if there' really nothing to get bothered about? Truth be told, you're kicking against the goads.

In fact, my explanation for your atheism is much more believable than your explanation against God. Look up the term "kicking against the goads," and you will better understand what's really going on in you.

I'm an atheist because I'm a rebel? And you know this because you're omnipotent? How do you know what i'm thinking or why i'm thinking it? Is it because you think you are god?

Folks we've just found god, he's sitting behind a computer talking to me he goes by the online handle: "THEONEBS". aka THE ONE FULL OF B.S.

After reading the story about the sign posted after and next to the manger scene the atheists can go fuck themselves.

Atheists are no better than the same zealot christian righties.

Kicking against the goads, dallasguy...Kicking against the goads!

Illusions of grandeur THEONEBS... Illusions of grandeur.

So god is a feeling ~ theoneps?

And what is the source of the feeling? Tell us almighty all-knowing ONEBS

god wrote to santa here...

did he ask for another virgin to impregnate?

Dear Santa,

Please bring back animal sacrifice, I miss the sweet smell of burning flesh. And burning human souls in hell doesn't give off the same odor that satisfies me so.

These green pieces of paper my believers give me smell like shit when burned.

tobacco?

So god is a feeling ~ theoneps?

#65 | Posted by Bani

Nice try Bani. Obfuscating won't help you. Read again my post which provoked you and dallas. God is no more a feeling than food or water are feelings.

But the felt need we call "hunger," the felt need we call "thirst," point to a reality outside the felt-need feeling. Namely, they point too food and water.

From where does this universal "felt need" feeling in arise? Do you believe hunger and thirst pangs would evolve in organisms who had no need for food or water? These "felt needs" point to something and are no mere result of blind chance. They evolved in organisms for a reason and point to the existence of something outside of the organism

From where does this religious need arise; all cultures, all peoples, all times, experience it. You wish to write-off such a universal phenomena...to dismiss it as a human construct or ivention? You're a fool if you do.

And since the felt-need of hunger and thirst point to realities beyond the organism which can meet those needs, what does the religious "felt need" point to?

You set up a paradigm that has false premises in it. You say that this "feeling" arises in "all peoples". False premise. Rework your theory.

oops just blew up your "theory" again.

You set up a paradigm that has false premises in it. You say that this "feeling" arises in "all peoples". False premise. Rework your theory.

#73 | Posted by imadallasguy

Sorry dallas, saying it's so doesn't make it so. You're just plain wrong. Any basic course in Anthropology will demonstrate your statement ludicrous. All cultures/peoples exhibit some form of relgion, some concept of the divine and afterlife.

Wanna' try again?

I don't, how do you explain that, I'm a person. So your theory doesn't work.

Have you ever heard of an atheist THEONEBS? Your theory fails to explain that. In fact my non-belief contradicts your theory.

You say that everyone has a religious "feeling". I don't, others don't, so your theory is now debunked by these obvious facts.

"Nice try Bani."

Thxs, but I'll stick with "tinnitus" as my way back home over "Feelings":>)

Have you ever heard of an atheist THEONEBS? Your theory fails to explain that. In fact my non-belief contradicts your theory.

#77 | Posted by imadallasguy

Yes, I've heard of them. They are simply anomalies.

Using my analogy, an atheist screaming out, "There is no such thing as God...it's all pure fantasy!" is no different than someone screaming out, "There is no such thing as food or water...these are figments of weak people's minds...people who feel they need such things to get by in life!"

In short, an atheist is a fool who kicks against the goads. He/she has a problem with the notion of being held accountable to someone higher than himself. Instead of submitting to such a being, the atheist pretends to be superior in intellect over those who do submit. But all the while the superior intellect continues to kick, scream, shake their fist at this being which supposedly does not exist (a rather funny and ironic behavior, I might add). In so doing, the foolish atheist convinces only himself/herself that such displays of pompacity will make that being go away.

Fools say "There is no God!" One only need look at their vitriolic behavior against such an "imaginary" being to understand they're simply fools whistling in the dark!

The premise of your theory is that every person has religious "feelings". I say there are people out there, like myself who don't have these religious "feelings". You respond with rhetoric about "kicking the goad". You still aren't able to account for atheists in your paradigm. I exists, I'm a human, I don't have religious "feelings". Your theory states that all humans have religious "feelings".

Your theory is simply proven false. You can't say to know what I feel, you aren't me. To do so is arrogant and ignorant and shows the simple-minded nature of your beliefs and your theory.

atheists are special people just like you & everyone else:>)

even walkins are special people:>)

The fool says I have certain "feelings" therefore every human to have ever existed must have the same "feelings".

Who is that fool, well it appears to be none other than yourself. Because that's exactly what you claim THEONEBS.

Whether you want to admit it or not, it is a false premise. Disguising it with parables and rhetoric such as "kicking the goad" doesn't make your theories fact.

"even walkins are special people:>)"

Posted by Bani

How about Walken?

The premise of your theory is that every person has religious "feelings". I say there are people out there, like myself who don't have these religious "feelings". You respond with rhetoric about "kicking the goad". You still aren't able to account for atheists in your paradigm. I exists, I'm a human, I don't have religious "feelings". Your theory states that all humans have religious "feelings".

Your theory is simply proven false. You can't say to know what I feel, you aren't me. To do so is arrogant and ignorant and shows the simple-minded nature of your beliefs and your theory.

#81 | Posted by imadallasguy

Feelings of the "numious" are what I would call religious "feelings," and yes dallas, you have them. It may be viewed as "the intense feeling of unknowingly knowing that there is something which cannot be seen." This "knowing" can "befall" or overcome a person at any time and in any place in a cathedral; next to a silent stream; on a lonely road; early in the morning or in the face of a beautiful sunset...a moment where the person senses something "other" something "more" than can be seen.

You've never had such experiences?

My favorite Walken is still the original "Dead Zone" version ~ lol

Wow!

Theo can read minds! (Or he's batshit crazy.)

"Religion is an insult to human dignity."
~Steve Weinberg, Nobel laureate in physics, 1979

You've never had such experiences?

#86 | Posted by TheOneBS

having one now with a Walken!

Wow!

Theo can read minds! (Or he's batshit crazy.)
#88 | Posted by Zatoichi

My money is on the latter!

"Theo can read minds! (Or he's batshit crazy.)"

You give him too much credit.

Most likely, his condition can be traced to good, old-fashioned stupidity.

The "deity" is nothing but an imaginary deaf, dumb, impotent mute for people with a vivid imagination and not enough brains for much else.

#48 | Posted by imadallasguy

^^^ someone who chose atheism not because of a sincere search for truth that lead them to that conclusion, but who chose it out of a need to feel superior to others.

How else can you explain such sweeping declarations that condemn so many people to stupidity? Does "imadallasguy" really think he's smarter than the president elect, who graduated magna cum laude at Harvard, and who happens to believe in a deity?

""Religion is an insult to human dignity."
~Steve Weinberg, Nobel laureate in physics, 1979"

"In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God's existence." - Isaac Newton, regarded by many as the smartest scientist in (at least) modern times.

"Isaac Newton, regarded by many as the smartest scientist in (at least) modern times."

I hate to break this to you, dimwit, but Isaac was a 17th century alchemist.

Interviewer: Did the study of anthropology later color your writings?
Vonnegut: It confirmed my atheism, which was the faith of my fathers anyway. Religions were exhibited and studied as the Rube Goldberg inventions I'd always thought they were.

Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.
-- Isaac Asimov (attributed: source unknown)

To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today.
--Isaac Asimov, "On Religiosity," Free Inquiry

When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.
-- Isaac Asimov, "The Relativity of Wrong" (1989)

Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.
-- Isaac Asimov (attributed: source unknown)

Wandering in a vast forest at night, I have only a faint light to guide me. A stranger appears and says to me: "My friend, you should blow out your candle in order to find your way more clearly." This stranger is a theologian.
-- Denis Diderot,

Incurably religious, that is the best way to describe the mental condition of so many people.
-- Thomas Edison

If you're going to get into big time religion, these are the games you have to play. You go into it as a business and you work it as a business.
-- Marjoe Gortner

People say we need religion when what they really mean is we need police.
-- H L Mencken

There is scarcely any part of science, or anything in nature, which those imposters and blasphemers of science, called priests, as well Christians as Jews, have not, at some time or other, perverted, or sought to pervert to the purpose of superstition and falsehood.
-- Thomas Paine

The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.
-- Bernard Shaw

"I hate to break this to you, dimwit, but Isaac was a 17th century alchemist."

Ic hate to break it to you, dimwit, but he originated the theory of gravity. And many other scientific advances. That alchemy was done by many in his day has zilch bearing on the issue.

Your quoting of people who have the same beliefs as you as though they are _the_ experts is extremely boring. Especially given that their field of expertise is not metaphysics or philosophy. Because they stayed in a Holiday Inn Express does _not_ make them experts in other fields. In fact, it tends to make them more like idiot savants.

Tax the FUCK out of the churches!
-- Frank Zappa

"Ic(sic) hate to break it to you, dimwit, but he originated the theory of gravity. "

Wow

Do tell!

When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bullshit story. Holy Shit!

- Geroge Carlin

next time someone sees & hears god (or one of BB's space aliens) ~ they better have a "smartpen" to get it right:>)

"Wow Do tell!"

Yep, a step up from Nobel laureate in physics, 1979.

Tell me, do you walk into a conference on, say, dark energy, state that Steve Weinberg, Nobel laureate in physics 1979, said x, and everyone bows and says "yes master, we hear and obey" ?

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

"I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details."

-Albert Einstein

Tax the FUCK out of the churches!
-- Frank Zappa

#98 | Posted by Zatoichi

lol

Speaking of taxing folks...

"It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30,000,000 in bonds and not $30,000,000 in currency. Both are promises to pay; but one promise fattens the usurer, and the other helps the people. If the currency issued by the Government were no good, then the bonds issued would be no good either. It is a terrible situation when the Government, to increase the national wealth, must go into debt and submit to ruinous interest charges at the hands of men who control the fictitious values of gold."

Thomas Edison

Albert Einstein was an atheist

I find it amusing you rail on religious extremists (Christians, in thise case) while at the same time projecting extremist atheist philosophies onto somebody else. You don't see how hypocritical that is?

#22 | Posted by Kinger at 2008-12-04 03:20 PM | Reply |
I'm not supporting atheism either, so no: I see no hypocrisy. I just think that a religious nut saying that atheists are a pain in the ass must be blissfully unaware of how their religion have reeked havoc for centuries and is still a "pain in the ass" to most today, as their religious beliefs are constantly sneaking into gov't policy to satisfy one part of the electorate,s religious beliefs.

Albert Einstein was an atheist

#105 | Posted by imadallasguy

oh really?

Throughout his life, Einstein repeatedly claimed that God does not "play dice", as he put it, with the universe. What did he mean? And why did he say it?

-Albert Einstein was an atheist

Hardly.

"I can't answer with a simple yes or no. I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things. 26"

"Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. 17"

I think a more substantive reply to Pancho's incredible hostility would be a guess at the root cause.
He musta been bent over a few times by one of them catholic priest, I bet he musta been an alter boy and had to play bend over and hide the salami a few times, hell I would be incredibly hostile too...

#26 | Posted by ATaxpayer at 2008-12-04 03:30 PM | Reply |

Try again, putz.

One day God was looking down at Earth and saw all of the rascally behavior that was going on. So he called one of His angels and sent the angel to Earth for a time.
When he returned, he told God, 'Yes, it is bad on Earth; 95% are misbehaving and only 5% are not.
God thought for a moment and said, 'Maybe I had better send down a second angel to get another opinion.
So God called another angel and sent him to Earth for a time.
When the angel returned he went to God and said, 'Yes, it's true.The Earth is in decline; 95% are misbehaving, but 5% are being good.
God was not pleased. So He decided to e-mail the 5% that were good, because he wanted to encourage them, and give them a little something to help them keep going.
Do you know what the e-mail said?

Okay, I was just wondering, because I didn't get one either.

TEACHER: Tommy do you see the tree outside?
TOMMY: Yes.
TEACHER: Tommy, do you see the grass outside?
TOMMY: Yes.
TEACHER: Go outside and look up and see if you can see the sky.
TOMMY: Okay. (He returned a few minutes later) Yes, I saw the sky.
TEACHER: Did you see God?
TOMMY: No.
TEACHER: That's my point. We can't see God because he isn't there. He doesn't exist.

A little girl spoke up and wanted to ask the boy some questions. The teacher agreed and the little girl questioned the boy.

LITTLE GIRL: Tommy, do you see the tree outside?
TOMMY: Yes.
LITTLE GIRL: Tommy do you see the grass outside?
TOMMY: Yessssss (getting tired of the questions this time).
LITTLE GIRL: Did you see the sky?
TOMMY: Yessssss.
LITTLE GIRL: Tommy, do you see the teacher?
TOMMY: Yes
LITTLE GIRL: Do you see the teacher's mind?
TOMMY: No.
LITTLE GIRL: Then according to what we were taught today in school, she must not have one!

Do you know what the e-mail said?
Okay, I was just wondering, because I didn't get one either.
#110 | Posted by Bani

I got that email. God said I could put a good word for five people.

I've still got one spot left on my list.

Can we start the bidding at $100?

The adversaries of religion, like Crick, Weinberg, Dawkins, and Dennett, frequently conflate "procedural atheism" (the kind from which science operates and must operate as it seeks material explanations for material reality) with "philosophical atheism" (the dogma which states that material reality is all that exists).

Theses adversaries to religion pretend that because God cannot be discovered through science, God cannot be discovered at all. Here is a classic statement from biologist Will Provine: "Modern science directly implies that the world is organized strictly in accordance with deterministic principles or chance. There are no purposive principles whatsoever in nature. There are no gods and no designing forces rationally detectable."

Provine makes it sound like this is one of modern science's great discoveries, whereas it is simply modern science's operating premise. Provine assumes without evidence that scientific knowledge is the only kind of knowledge, and that it gives us true and full access to reality.

Is such an assumption valid? Hell no! To be sure, scientific knowledge is NOT the only kind of knowledge. Physicist John Polkinghorne provides the following example: If you were to ask a scientist, "Why is that water boiling?" he or she would answer in terms of molecules and temperatures. But there is a second explanation: the water is boiling because I want to have a cup of tea. This second explanation is a perfectly valid description of reality, yet it is ignored or avoided by the scientific account.

The reason for this, mathematician Roger Penrose writes, is that science is incapable of answering questions about the nature or purpose of reality. Science merely tries to answer the question, "How does this behave?"

So science does not even claim to be a full description of reality, only of one aspect of reality.

Yet, these self-appointed brights use philosophical atheism to co-opt science for their own purpose. They hate God, and even the idea of God. In their hate they try to come across as know-it-alls who are superior to others considered ignorant or superstitious or both. In their self-lauding condescension of others they will not even consider the possibility of God. Their hubris mixed with a guilty conscience blinds them to such a reality. In truth, they convince only themselves. They are kicking against the goads! Truly, they are fools!

Theonebs,

D.D'Souza is a very good source for the religion side of the "God debate". But you really should give him credit in your post.

sorry, my bad! ...D'souza, page 163, What's So Great About Christianity.

As an Atheist, I really don't care if you want to believe in God. It is none of my business. If you wish to keep spending your resources supporting the racket of organized religion, then have at it. Go wild. There is no law against being a knucklehead. I have no vitriol for "god". That would be like being angry with Darth Vader for what he did to Alderan. My issue with religion is the fact that they insist that I support their delusions with my dollar. I say "No more free rides for the religious." We should put all church owned properties back on the tax rolls. No more tax free status for religious organizations. They can't afford it you say? What happened to "God will provide"? Not much of a god if he can't even pay his taxes.

That would be like being angry with Darth Vader for what he did to Alderan.

~BobDobbs

Speak fer yerself, Bob, Spud is still incensed at that shiat.

S'rsly, an entire power wiped out in one fell blow?

Doesn't matter that it was an imaginary planet that shiat is just plain EVIL and WRONG.

Fuck Darth Vader!!!

Fuck him with a Red Hawt Poker!!1!11!ELEVENTY

Be Well.

/Spud keeds again.
// ^_^

"But there is a second explanation: the water is boiling because I want to have a cup of tea. This second explanation is a perfectly valid description of reality, yet it is ignored or avoided by the scientific account."

Yeah...and the sun is shining because I want to be warm.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahah a!!!

"Yeah...and the sun is shining because I want to be warm."

Great rebuttal. Wonder why Dawkins didn't think of it.

"Wonder why Dawkins didn't think of it."

Probably because he didn't feel the need to address such an idiotic premise.

Or maybe because he understood the underlying principle involved and attempted to debate that rather than be a literalist and appear stupid.

I have compassion for atheists, as they are making an eternal bet with their destinies. Heard of Pascal's wager? Less chance than Russian roullette.

It takes a lot of faith to be an atheist. Also its very convenient and easy to be an atheist.

"If you were to ask a scientist, "Why is that water boiling?" he or she would answer in terms of molecules and temperatures. But there is a second explanation: the water is boiling because I want to have a cup of tea. This second explanation is a perfectly valid description of reality, yet it is ignored or avoided by the scientific account."

Posted by THEONEBS

B, May I call you B? You are making this harder than it really is. The water isn't hot because you want a cup of tea. The water is hot because you put in in a pot and stuck it over a flame. Both the scientist's and the tea drinker's statements may be true, but they describe entirely different phenomena. There is nothing deep or mysterious about either statement, and unless you can pray my up a nice steaming cuppa Earl Grey, I remain unimpressed.

only a few of you... GET A CLUE!

#46 | Posted by ichiro

Yes, only a few. Compare ALL the quotes and actions that you can to the amount of Christians in todays society and your side amounts to very few. And you said a few of you. Where, in my post, did I state that I was a Christian? And where at all did I give the impression that I was a Bible thumper who would go along with these things that you brought up?

I have compassion for atheists, as they are making an eternal bet with their destinies. Heard of Pascal's wager? Less chance than Russian roullette.
#122 | Posted by takitez

Takitez, is that why you believe something? Because you fear that you may be punished? I should mouth pieties on the off chance that the Hairy Thunderer will spank? What kind of spoiled child is your god?

As an Atheist, I really don't care if you want to believe in God. It is none of my business. If you wish to keep spending your resources supporting the racket of organized religion, then have at it. Go wild. There is no law against being a knucklehead. I have no vitriol for "god". That would be like being angry with Darth Vader for what he did to Alderan. My issue with religion is the fact that they insist that I support their delusions with my dollar. I say "No more free rides for the religious." We should put all church owned properties back on the tax rolls. No more tax free status for religious organizations. They can't afford it you say? What happened to "God will provide"? Not much of a god if he can't even pay his taxes.

#116 | Posted by bobdobbs

Amen!!!!!! Didn't god even say give back to ceasar what is ceasar's. In other words pay taxes oh pious ones. Religion can afford it, it's the biggest racket in the World! Churches are the biggest landowner in the United States of America, why should they not be taxed?

Churches are the biggest landowner in the United States of America, why should they not be taxed?

do you have to ask?

BobD,

The argument D'Souza is making relates to what he states in that paragraph, i.e., "To be sure, scientific knowledge is NOT the only kind of knowledge... This second explanation is a perfectly valid description of reality, yet it is ignored or avoided by the scientific account." That's the issue you need to debate. He is _not_ stating that wanting the cup to be hot causes it to be hot. He is describing perspectives. Science will describe how the cup got hot. It won't deal with _why_ the cup is being heated.

I have compassion for atheists, as they are making an eternal bet with their destinies. Heard of Pascal's wager? Less chance than Russian roullette.
#122 | Posted by takitez

Pascal's wager is such a simple minded assertion. It ignores that there are tens of thousands of gods that people have worshiped throughout written history. So according to Pascal's wager we should believe in Bahl, Zeus, Aphrodite, Yahweh, Allah, Annapurna, Ganesha, Maya, Balrama, Garuda, Ram, Saraswati etc. etc. on the off chance that these gods exist.

It's more probable that none of these gods exist than all of these gods existing. So who's god do you believe in, Pascal offers no answers to this question. It's a completely idiotic proposition.

What theists don't understand is that they too are atheists. For example the Christian is atheistic when it comes to belief in Zeus. Everyone is an atheist in respects to some god or the other. No one believes in all these gods.

So which god does Pascal say to worship?

"For example the Christian is atheistic when it comes to belief in Zeus"

lol yet, there is Zeus in the courthouse lobby in downtown Minneapolis

Did you hear about the insomniac, dyslexic, agnostic?

He laid awake all night wondering if there really was a Dog.

"So God was a feeling..."

Yeah? I thought Toyota was a 'feeling'.

"...You're an atheist because you're a rebel...

You're a Christian because you're a rebel. The Emperors of rome told me so. In fact they crucified your Fake Messiah because of it.

"...There's just something you don't like about the idea of God (hence your vitriole against God). It threatens you in some way. You're simply shaking your fist at something that supposedly is unreal to you....Posted by TheOneBS

No, I think us atheists are shaking 'our fists' because you, sir, are a MORON.

Can christians (all christians)get any more idiotic? Oh wait. 2012 is coming up. Doomsday, Mayan Calendar ends, right...?

Christians in in Foil Hats.

Nanoo Nanoo.

Even THEONEBS is an atheist, he just hasn't realized it yet, he's too busy inventing cockamamy theories about "feelings".

"As an Atheist, I really don't care if you want to believe in God. It is none of my business. If you wish to keep spending your resources supporting the racket of organized religion, then have at it. Go wild. There is no law against being a knucklehead. I have no vitriol for "god". That would be like being angry with Darth Vader for what he did to Alderan. My issue with religion is the fact that they insist that I support their delusions with my dollar. I say "No more free rides for the religious." We should put all church owned properties back on the tax rolls. No more tax free status for religious organizations. They can't afford it you say? What happened to "God will provide"? Not much of a god if he can't even pay his taxes."

It depends on how you want to view separation of church and state. On one hand, the church could probably afford it, but on the other hand, you would have to do this uniformly to every religion out there. And even then there'd be a problem because you could argue that by taxing religion you're supporting atheism. Which in a way you are. Even if the church could theoretically afford it, in reality they are actually strapped for cash at the moment. So they might actually just start to pull out of the US, and then you'd definitely have a problem with church and state.
Furthermore you'd have to tax all those little mom-and-pop start up religions, which could hinder them as well, so that would also spark up the church and state bit.

Funnily enough, did you know that priests/preachers/spiritual leaders (of all religions) do actually pay income tax? Although they do get reimbursement for money spent on their ministry (for catholic priests) or for any ceremonies pertaining to that religion.

You cannot logically disprove God, by the way. You have to prove something mutually exclusive in order to prove that something is not something else. Example:
To prove that Mary is not a boy, I first have to prove that she's a girl. "Girl-ness" is mutually exclusive with "boy-ness" (usually) thus Mary cannot be a boy, because she is a girl.

As there is nothing that is mutually exclusive with God, you can't say that he doesn't exist.
And yes there's the lack of evidence, but evidence does not constitute absolute truth. Evidence merely changes the probability that one statement is correct. So lack of evidence just makes God's existence unlikely, but not impossible. Here's a nifty example (I'm a strict believer in natural selection as the main mechanism of the phenomenon evolution, by the way):
We have lots of evidence which supports evolution, however it is entirely possible that all of that evidence was planted by aliens in the year 1675. Is it probable? Hell no. Possible? Yes.

So faith is merely the acceptance of poor odds. Then take a look at Pascal's Wager.

If there is a God, then all believers get rewarded with heaven, while all the atheists go to hell (depending on your beliefs). If there is not then they nobody gets anything. That's a bit simple, but it's the general gist of the idea.
So atheists? Please stop ragging on my religion. You can call me deluded if you want, but the funny thing is that you seem to have a poorer understanding of logic and science than I do.

It depends on how you want to view separation of church and state. On one hand, the church could probably afford it, but on the other hand, you would have to do this uniformly to every religion out there. And even then there'd be a problem because you could argue that by taxing religion you're supporting atheism. Which in a way you are. Even if the church could theoretically afford it, in reality they are actually strapped for cash at the moment. So they might actually just start to pull out of the US, and then you'd definitely have a problem with church and state.
Furthermore you'd have to tax all those little mom-and-pop start up religions, which could hinder them as well, so that would also spark up the church and state bit.

#134 | Posted by Postscript624

How would taxing religion be supporting atheism?

You're worried if you taxed religions then they'd pull out of the US...lol.

And, after all, these religions are supposedly backed by all-powerful gods, if that's truly the case don't you think they'll be alright? That is, unless, you're concerned that they're not really backed by gods at all.

"Can christians (all christians)get any more idiotic? Oh wait. 2012 is coming up. Doomsday, Mayan Calendar ends, right...?"
No need to be rude like that. I, personally, am pretty smart, and I'm a christian (more or less, I guess). Oh and, and so was Einstein. Christian=/=stupid. Show some tolerance eh? Stereotypes and generalizations apply to us majorities too.
You're using the same argument that the religious-right uses against gays. "Define the nature of the group by the actions of a few".

Because you would be putting a disincentive on the practice of religion. Taxing things makes people not want to do them.

"And, after all, these religions are supposedly backed by all-powerful gods, if that's truly the case don't you think they'll be alright? That is, unless, you're concerned that they're not really backed by gods at all. "

Not really, I just don't a GOD(General Omnipotent Deity) would be so petty as to make money rain from the sky or something to help their believers. They'd want us to use our ability's and skills. That's how you do homage to God. Not through hurting others, or big fusses and gold, but through using the talents and abilities you were born with to better mankind.

Although allowing religion to remain untaxed would not necessarily do so. But I think if we have this ability to reason, and we supposedly are created by god (again, not a Creationist here) then wouldn't s/he or it want us to use that ability to the fullest of its ability?

"...because you could argue that by taxing religion you're supporting atheism."

If that is true then this is true:

You could argue that by not taxing religion you're supporting religion...

... which is exactly why a lot of people have problems with the tax-exempt status of (some) religions' holdings.

Hans

So faith is merely the acceptance of poor odds. Then take a look at Pascal's Wager.

If there is a God, then all believers get rewarded with heaven, while all the atheists go to hell (depending on your beliefs). If there is not then they nobody gets anything. That's a bit simple, but it's the general gist of the idea.
So atheists? Please stop ragging on my religion. You can call me deluded if you want, but the funny thing is that you seem to have a poorer understanding of logic and science than I do.

#135 | Posted by Postscript624

Which god does Pascal say to believe in? Again, there are tens of thousands of gods that man has worshiped throughout recorded history.

Me being an atheist and let's assume that you are a Christian. If Allah is the one true god then you too will go to hell, right alongside me. But at least I didn't worship a false god, so maybe Allah will go easier on me than you, since you worshiped a false god: a man (Jesus). If Allah is anything like Yahweh, he's a jealous and vengeful god. I fear for the hell that will be unleashed upon your soul if you are wrong.

So using Pascal's wager it would be wise of you to believe in Yahweh, Allah, Zeus and all the other gods ever known of.

Doesn't make much sense now does it POSTSCRIPT?

Fair enough. You could argue that. But then we're in a bit of a pickle aren't we? However, as I said before, priests do pay income tax.

Also, we don't really tax atheism (as hard as that would be). So we're not making and laws with respect to religious views at all.

Yes, I've seen that one before. But by being an atheist your definitely going to hell no matter what, AND your relying on the assumption that your punishment will be lighter. I at least have a CHANCE of going to heaven. (But I'm not really a big believer in Hell, I just like to play with logic). But either way, I feel that I've got a few more bases covered than you.

Random Note:
I'm a Deist, which is kind of christian. But I throw some Buddhist stuff in there to.

Finally, Christians don't actually worship Jesus. We/they are supposed to follow in his footsteps.

"Funnily enough, did you know that priests/preachers/spiritual leaders (of all religions) do actually pay income tax?"

Ahem...after subtracting all their housing expenses...something neither you nor I get to do.

Yes, I've seen that one before. But by being an atheist your definitely going to hell no matter what, AND your relying on the assumption that your punishment will be lighter. I at least have a CHANCE of going to heaven. (But I'm not really a big believer in Hell, I just like to play with logic). But either way, I feel that I've got a few more bases covered than you.

#143 | Posted by Postscript624

You can't honestly tell me that your faith hinges upon a so called hedging of a bet, or an analysis of probability.

One either believes a proposition or doesn't. I don't choose to not believe in your god. I don't believe in your god because there is no evidence to establish him/it. Yet if tomorrow evidence arose to establish the existence of your god, I would immediately change my mind. The evidence for Zeus, Allah, Yahweh etc. just isn't there for me.

Belief is not subject to will. Try this, just for one second, using your will power alone, will yourself not to believe in your god. Don't worry you can go right back to believing him in one moment. You can't do it. It's not that you won't do it, you can't do it.

Again belief is not subject to will.

Someone can't just walk up to me and say if you don't believe in my god Zeus then your stupid because if Zeus exists and you don't believe in him he's going to torment you for all eternity. That's ridiculous.

I can actually list evidence that would be sufficient to convince me that your god exists.

The question is (and I've never had a Christian honestly answer this) what evidence would convince you that your religion is false?

"Finally, Christians don't actually worship Jesus."

WTF?????

BobD,

The argument D'Souza is making relates to what he states in that paragraph, i.e., "To be sure, scientific knowledge is NOT the only kind of knowledge... This second explanation is a perfectly valid description of reality, yet it is ignored or avoided by the scientific account." That's the issue you need to debate. He is _not_ stating that wanting the cup to be hot causes it to be hot. He is describing perspectives. Science will describe how the cup got hot. It won't deal with _why_ the cup is being heated.

#128 | Posted by fyi

Okey-Doke,I'll bite. What does hias show us, beyond the fact that a physical scientist is not interested in why Mr D'Souza wants his Darjeeling hot rather than tepid. People have their own reasons for doing things. Duh. What does this have to do with the god/no god delimma? This is such an oversimplification of the issue. Of course the scientist doesn't care why you are heating the water. But by golly, if you are going to demand that fairies are causing it, then you better come up with some proof if you want to be taken seriously by anyone but the simple minded.

"You can't honestly tell me that your faith hinges upon a so called hedging of a bet, or an analysis of probability."
Why not? I'm a logical person, and it does. But that statement is completely illogical.

"Someone can't just walk up to me and say if you don't believe in my god Zeus then your stupid because if Zeus exists and you don't believe in him he's going to torment you for all eternity. That's ridiculous."
Well actually then CAN. Will you do it? Probably not. But I see your point.
Belief, for me at least, is subject to will, but that proves nothing. I can choose not believe in Atomic theory if I want, but would I be listening to logic? No. I actually considered being an atheist for a while. However, I found it insufficient. It is basically empiricism, which I find some problems with. Especially concerning metaphysical problems, because they usually rely completely on logic, while empiricism relies only on experimental data. Which has its merits, however it is not the be-all-end-all. Again, I place much more emphasis on logic than empirical data.

"The question is (and I've never had a Christian honestly answer this) what evidence would convince you that your religion is false?"
And I answer this "none". As I said above, to prove something false, you must prove the mutually exclusive opposite true. By definition God has no mutually exclusive opposite that can be proved true.

So evidence? None. I would, however, refute my belief in God (not religion, don't confuse the two) were you to provide me with some logical argument which I could not refute.

And no, a paradox doesn't meet the criteria.

"The argument D'Souza is making relates to what he states in that paragraph, i.e., "To be sure, scientific knowledge is NOT the only kind of knowledge... This second explanation is a perfectly valid description of reality, yet it is ignored or avoided by the scientific account." That's the issue you need to debate. He is _not_ stating that wanting the cup to be hot causes it to be hot. He is describing perspectives. Science will describe how the cup got hot. It won't deal with _why_ the cup is being heated."

That's just stupid.

And, yes Dave, any true Christian (whom I'm not sure if I count myself amongst) should tell you that they do not worship Jesus. They believe him to the messenger of God, who spreads what is supposed to be what we should all be doing. They will also note that his message is of peace and love. OMG Jesus was a hippy! Long hair, sandals, peace and love!? ;)

In all seriousness I find a lot of people who say that they are christian have strayed from the path. Just because it's in The Bible, doesn't mean it's the literal word of God, or even something that God would want.

"Also, we don't really tax atheism (as hard as that would be). So we're not making and laws with respect to religious views at all."

#142 | Posted by Postscript624

Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color. I don't believe that you can or should make laws with respect to religious views. You should feel free to believe as you wish. All I am asking is that I not be required to support the real estate holdings and housing for the clergy and whatever else that I pay taxes on and that they do not. I don't even have a problem with their deducting the costs of whatever charitable work they might do, just as I can. Just because they believe unlikely things does not give them a right to be parasites on society.

"...any true Christian (whom I'm not sure if I count myself amongst) should tell you that they do not worship Jesus."

Who knows where you get yer wacky info, but the bible the rest of the world has been reading says that god and Jesus are one and the same.

And I don't know a single "christian" who wouldn't say that yer sadly mistaken.

I don't know about that, Dave. I've always had a little trouble with this one. Why would Jesus pray to his father all throughout the New Testament if they were the same entity? Why would he have said, 'why hast thou forsaken me'?

The trinity is held by many sects of Christianity but I wouldn't say that all of them believe God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost to be one and the same.

Oh really? Because I'm pretty sure one of the commandments is "You shall have no other gods before Me." So worshiping Jesus is pretty much out. He is, supposedly,the son of God, but to worship him is to mistake his message. We are supposed to worship God because he is our father. Jesus, as his son, is equivalent to a very well-informed brother. Worshiping him because of his potentially divine nature is like worshiping something because it's there. You should follow in his footsteps and do homage to god as he does, but to worship him would be to mistakenly understand his purpose. But I digress.

bobdobbs:
One more time: Priests do pay tax. They even are taxed for their rectories. The only thing they do not pay tax on is the church (the physical area) itself, and any costs associated with their traditions.
The notion that any religion doesn't have to pay any tax is ridiculous. They pay taxes on pretty much everything that is not directly associated with their house of worship, and the traditions inside.

If atheists wanted to create some sort of place where they could go to affirm their "atheist-ness" or something I would have no problem exempting that place from tax.

"The trinity is held by many sects of Christianity..."

Name one that doesn't.

"Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color"
Kind of, but not really. It's not religion, but the absence of it. However, by taxing one school of belief (religion) and not taxing the other (atheism) that still promotes the one school over the other. So while atheism isn't a religion, it is still a system of belief (in that you believe that there is no God).

Postscript it sounds like your religion is just an amalgam of several different religions Buddhism/Deism with a dash of Christianity. It's kind of like picking and choosing between various religions the parts you like and discarding the rest.

What makes you sure your particular recipe of religion is the correct one?

Nothing, but it's still seems safer than nothing.
Wow that sounds odd. What I was trying to do was refer back to the Pascal's Hedge thing.

Mostly I have thought all of the parts of my belief system through to the best of my ability with logic (which I feel to be critical to human nature, as is emotion), and I have come to the conclusion that certain beliefs/actions are the best option. So by my premises I am right. Although I must admit, it's still a work in progress. Not that it will ever really be finished.

And I would say that Deism is a branch of Christianity.

Actually I retract my opening statement. Logic makes me sure. More or less.

Deism is not a branch of Christianity. Many of our deist forefathers spoke out against Christianity. Read Jefferson's writings. Or better yet read Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason it's free find it using Google books. He thoroughly debunks Christianity in it.

So I would say that you know very little of the religion that you believe in. Oops

Hmmm....fair enough. But I don't have to agree with other deists.
I would argue that many of the premises are the same. One single god, they just place a different emphasis on important human qualities.

But you make a fair point. I am somewhat unfamiliar with other deist's writings. I really tell people that I'm a deist because it seems to be the most close to what my beliefs are (God and logic). So maybe I'm not a deist then?

The other one I give to people is "foodism". That's my own invention.

Thomas Paine you say? I'll be sure to read it.

Postscript-

Just so that I understand. You say you are a fan of logic and reason. I too am a fan of logic and reason. I've got a few questions so that I can understand where you are coming from.

What do you believe?

Why do you believe it?

And why should anyone else believe it?

Read Jefferson's writings.

#162 | Posted by imadallasguy

Jefferson knew people who's grandparents could still remember how burning flesh smelled during the Puritan era - when 'compassion' meant the person being burned at the stake would be strangled to death before burning.

Why would I care what other people believe in the first place? I'm not trying to sell my beliefs onto other people.

Basically your asking me for proofs of my beliefs? Ug, I'm a bit screwed for time right now, so I really don't want to go into the rest of them. Mostly they consist that 1) There is a God (or at least you can't prove that there isn't one [see above]) 2) Logic is the most important human capability for questions of metaphysical purpose.
There's some more stuff taken from random bits of Buddhism, but that's the minutiae. You'll have to buy the book ;)

I believe the second because I find empiricism lacking in the area of metaphysics. The only other system of knowing I can find is logic. But I'm still working on it.

I'm pretty young, so I haven't had a lot of time to work on all this stuff (I've only been capable of really good thinking for a few years).

Ultimately I've been asking myself those questions for a while and I'm still pulling stuff out of the amorphous mass of my brain.

Anyways Dallasguy, I have to go now, however I'm often cruising these boards, so I'll be happy to talk with you later. If you bump into me feel free to drop me some questions. Is there some sort of function on this thing which would allow for communication of the boards?

Postscript-

I understand what you're saying, your still fleshing it out for yourself.

Read
The Age of Reason
by Thomas Paine

I think that you'll find it enlightening on your journey for truth using logic and reason.

Dave, Dave, Dave you must not be very familiar with the new age of Christianity. Hell, there are sects who don't even talk Jesus up that much. I'm about to leave for the day so I don't have time to google up some info on certain sects and their names. I guess you'll just have to not believe me.

One more time: Priests do pay tax. They even are taxed for their rectories. The only thing they do not pay tax on is the church (the physical area) itself, and any costs associated with their traditions.
The notion that any religion doesn't have to pay any tax is ridiculous. They pay taxes on pretty much everything that is not directly associated with their house of worship, and the traditions inside.

If atheists wanted to create some sort of place where they could go to affirm their "atheist-ness" or something I would have no problem exempting that place from tax.

#156 | Posted by Postscript624

OK, that is fine, I am not interested in what taxes a preist etc does or does not pay. The preist does not own the church. The church/synagogue/whatever should be taxed at the same rate that any company or corporation pays on their real estate.
And Script, it is most generous that you would offer us a church of our own, in which to affirm our "atheist-ness", but it is kind of the point that we don't feel that we need one.

Right, but my point is that you have the option if you want to take it. You are choosing not to.

I would also like to propose this:
I define God as "an entity whose existence cannot be disproven". What would you say to that?

Also, thanks for the reading suggestion dallasguy. I will definitely take a look at it.
But I would also like you to cogitate (that's a fantastic word) one what I said.
Lol, here I am contradicting myself. I said I wasn't trying to sell you on this, but now I'm asking you to think it over. I sound like a salesman.
But anyway:
Please do think over what I said about at least not being able to _disprove_ the existence of God.

I define God as "an entity whose existence cannot be disproven". What would you say to that?

Though true, I would say that is redundant. From a logical standpoint, any Logics 101 teacher will tell you that nothing can be disproven.

Right, but my point is that you have the option if you want to take it. You are choosing not to.
Posted by Postscript624

Being an atheist, I would say my home is my place of worship. You suppose the tax collector would say it's OK for me not to pay property taxes?

Goatman -

I know you, especially, will enjoy reading this article about Frank Zappa.

The author's description of Zappa --

"...He was most likely a seeker who sought refuge in imaginary sonic gods or perhaps to become an imaginary sonic god himself...."

That was a good article, CC. Thanks.

I read an interview with Zappa once many years ago. He said he did not consider himself a musician. He considered himself a sculptor. He said his medium was the air and he sculpted its shape with his guitar.

Interesting concept if you think about it as a geek (using the defintion in the article) would.

I define God as "an entity whose existence cannot be disproven". What would you say to that?
Posted by Postscript 624

You could make the same argument about Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. Do you believe in them?

Goat --

Interesting concept if you think about it as a geek
(using the defintion in the article) would.

Interesting you singled out mention of the "geek" part in the in that one particular paragraph of the article because there were a number of aspects which reminded me of you in a (complimentary) way when I read it --

...The geeks watched Monty Python, played Dungeons and Dragons, learned to program their Commodore64 computers, wrote fiction, created their own mock television shows with early video equipment , read literature, fantasy and sci-fi and listened to real heavy metal (Ozzy/Priest/Maiden). The common thread was that we (yes, and fiercely proud of it) were not ashamed of intelligence and creativity....

As for the heavy metal music this Zappa article attributed to "geeks" -- Ozzy and Judas Priest -- well, I really don't know just what kind of music you're really into and if that also fits your tastes. Most musical references you've ever made on here were only to Zappa songs. (I'm not a heavy metal fan myself.)

I really liked this article's description of Zappa perhaps thinking of himself as a "sonic god" and it's so similar to what you had written Zappa had said in another interview --

...He said he did not consider himself a musician. He considered himself a sculptor. He said his medium was the air and he sculpted its shape with his guitar.

Yes, "sonic god" describes Zappa's style well.

Glad you enjoyed the read. Thought you would.

Bobdobbs (post #123),

I have a relationship with God and I love Him --- God first loved me (Romans 5:8; John 3:16).

Its people like you that I'm talking about: taking chances with eternal destiny.

How can one take chances with destiny?

How can one take chances with destiny?

Good point, betelg

How can one take chances with destiny?

I took a chance with Destiny once. It turned into one hell of a weekend.

Zap-
I wasn't talking about a stripper with the stage name Destiny, but I hope you had a good time. BTW, I wonder how many strippers have that name?

I have a relationship with God and I love Him --- God first loved me (Romans 5:8; John 3:16).
Posted by TakeItEZ

I would say it is a one-way relationship. One where your partner normally ignores you. That is, unless he wants to make your life interesting by giving you some "nice" condition like cancer or countless others.

I prefer to believe in Occam's Razor and take the simpler approach.

"Being an atheist, I would say my home is my place of worship. You suppose the tax collector would say it's OK for me not to pay property taxes?"
As a Christian, I could say that my home is my place of worship. Do I not have to pay property taxes?
(BTW: Not actually christian, it's just convenient for the example)

"Though true, I would say that is redundant. From a logical standpoint, any Logics 101 teacher will tell you that nothing can be disproven."
Actually, I already know that. Read my earlier posts. The only way to disprove something is to prove a mutually exclusive opposite. Example:
Givens-
If A is true then B cannot be true.
If B is true then A cannot be true.

In order to prove the B is false, I must prove that A is true. If I can do so, I can disprove B, because it's mutual exclusive is true.

"You could make the same argument about Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. Do you believe in them?"
I do not, because Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny both can exist of empirical data. God would be outside of our universe, thus somewhat outside the realm of empirical data. His existence or lack thereof can only be proved by logic really.
I mean, if you wanna get really nitty-gritty about it you could go with Descartes. He proposed that the only thing you know for sure is that you exist. "Cogito ergo sum". So technically there are circumstances underwhich Santa could exist. However it is unlikely that they are true. Thus I do not believe in him.
But again. God, being a metaphysical entity, cannot be proved or "disproved" by empirical data. You can argue that he may or may not be active in our world, but from a logical standpoint you cannot know if he exists or not solely through empirical means.

Perhaps "god" is a physicist hacker that induced a singularity, encoded with the rules of his created Universe - which is now ours. You think that's insane?

"When I invented chaotic inflation theory, I found that the only thing you needed to get a universe like ours started is a hundred-thousandth of a gram of matter," . . . "That's enough to create a small chunk of vacuum that blows up into the billions and billions of galaxies we see around us. It looks like cheating, but that's how the inflation theory worksall the matter in the universe gets created from the negative energy of the gravitational field. So, what's to stop us from creating a universe in a lab?

Its people like you that I'm talking about: taking chances with eternal destiny.

#179 | Posted by takitez

If you're only religious to hedge your bets, that doesn't say much about your god or your religion.

Plus, if you don't want to take chances with your "eternal destiny", then shouldn't you also be a Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist etc. After all, who knows which one is the right one?

I've given up on trying to use a rational approach to showing the flaws, inconsistencies, and fallacies of religions. I've read some very well-written arguments and valid criticism in this post, but it's wasted on some people.

Religious people will believe what they want to or are told to, constructing arguments with the rational strength of wet pasta. They are capable of ignoring any amount of factual evidence that contradicts their opinion, content to remain ignorant of the world and have faith that their deity just made it that way.

Holy crap Yaz, that's really cool. thanks for posting.

Zombiehunter-
I'm curious to hear what you think of my argument then, as I assure you that I adhered to the strictes of logical guidelines.

PS624

There may be a God that humans know nothing about--some mysterious unknown being, but the biblical god is easily proven false.

All the major stories of the OT are based on stolen stories from older religions, and the older stories actually make sense. Genesis, Adam, Garden of Eden, the Flood, Tower of Babel, all stolen, edited stories from older religions. That makes the OT biblical god false. The NT biblical god is based on the OT biblical god, so it is false also. Even so, the virgin birth, son of god, resurrection, are all stolen concepts also.

So while it is true that the existence of God can not be disproved, the biblical god is not subject to such restrictions.

Here are a couple of books that contain the stories from the older religions.

Postscript624-

Yours were among the most enjoyable of the posts I read. I'm assuming the argument you were referring to is your statement that the existence of God cannot be disproven through logic and empiricism. I am in complete agreement with you and your reasoning, and I think you could easily extend that statement to include most supernatural phenomena. Their unfalsifiability makes these concepts unscientific. For the most part, they do not make testable predictions that can be evaluated. When supernatural claims are testable, they also provide a means of rationalizing their inconsistency with observed fact. After all, you can never disprove the possibility that Jesus, a talking snake, or a flying spaghetti monster is just manipulating the data.

Now and in the future, areas will inevitably exist where science and reason do not offer any insight. Some people will be daunted by this mystery and seek refuge in the supernatural- they are satisfied by inserting a miracle of divine intervention in these areas. Others may just ignore these messy, inconvenient uncertanties and direct their curiosity toward less obscure matters. Others will be unsatisfied by both of these approaches and devote their lives to the struggle to increase humanity's knowledge, never having any gurantee that their efforts will be successful. To them, God is a notion that can never be refuted outright, but is a less fulfilling answer to outstanding questions than continued investigation.

A person's way of confronting the unknown seems to me to be determined by what brings him or her the greatest personal satisfaction. This country ostensibly respects every individual's right to "the pursuit of happiness". In my opinion, this right should include the right to hold the worldview that brings the most satisfaction, free of interference and judgment by others. Your freedom ends where mine begins. Are you listening, Kentucky?

Perhaps "god" is a physicist hacker that induced a singularity, encoded with the rules of his created Universe - which is now ours. You think that's insane?
-Yav

In the event of God's existence, it is far more likely that he she or it is closer to a scientist then the petty, vindictive asshole that many his followers prefer. Stupidity in the name of God is a distinctly human invention. If God exists, his creation would be an immense, intricate universe subject to simple laws that allow great complexity. I guess that would make God an artist as well.

-the biblical god is easily proven false.

This has been posted so often it qualifies as spam.

And it is merely one persons opinion in a long-held debate, not "a fact".

In addition, Wiseman's theory is consistent with the relationship of Gilgamesh and Genesis. There are some similarities between the two, yet many important differences.

More specifically, if Genesis was translated from stone tablets written by the main characters of the events, then these tablets would pre-date the writing of Gilgamesh. Meanwhile, Gilgamesh was based on oral transmission of the events.

So the record in Genesis would be the accurate record; whereas Gilgamesh would be a somewhat "twisted" record. Being based on oral traditions passed over centuries, the latter would be expected to keep some of the main points intact but alter many of the details.

Wiseman's theory also fits with the archeological evidence of the character of the ancient cuneiform, stone tablets as compared to the Genesis narratives. There are many similarities in the writing structure between them. He summarizes all of the evidences on pages 144-148 of his book.

He concludes by stating:
These twenty-four strands woven together make a cumulative muster of evidences, so exceptional both in character and importance, that they establish the antiquity of Genesis as a contemporary record of events upon a sure foundation. This foundation is the internal testimony of the book itself, supported by the external corroboration of archeology.

And btw, reading the differences in the two stories makes it perfectly clear which of them seems more reasonable and which more silly.

Since 1872, actually.

Immediately the opponents of the Bible jumped on the story as proof the Bible was wrong. Their reasoning had serious flaws in it. Far from disproving the flood, here was independent confirmation. (Today over 200 flood accounts are known from around the world.) The evidence suggests that Moses wrote the Genesis flood account based on an ancient event; Gilgamesh, however, seems to be a fictionalized version of the same historical event. We know this because several Gilgamesh versions have since been found, differing considerably from each another.

In tone, the two accounts could hardly be more different. Gilgamesh is the story of a boastful man who exalted himself, battling even with the gods after a goddess falls in love with him; Genesis, by contrast, tells the story of men favored by God because they accepted his premises and promises and obeyed him

A comparison of the arks in the two flood stories is also telling.

Thanks Zombie.
And yeah, you are right that God lies outside Science, however outside reason is another thing. As a metaphysical entity I believe that reason is the only way to define God. It exists as the final point of reason, if you will. I guess it's kind of like the, what Rumsfeld might call "the known unknown".
I don't know if that makes any sense.

The Poetry of D.H. Rumsfeld

The Unknown
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.

Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing

What? No retort from Bob?

Perhaps he has learned the difference between fact and opinion after all.

I'll check back later.

I only got to watch part of it, I'll check back after I see the rest. Thanks

No prob.