Kerry,

The monkey god is a symbol of strength in India. SO its appropriate. What is not appropriate is making monkey dolls that look like Obama...ie the Utah fiasco.

Who cares! A cross is just as silly. Monkey God = symbol of silly human myth story. Cross = symbol of human myth story. Maybe they both are comforting to their adherents. a warm and fuzzy feeling doesn't mean any of it is true. Give me a break, typical Kerry bullshit, nothing to see here.

Exerpt from the Daily Hogwash:

John McCain wears a invisible pink unicorn pin: Pastafarians everywhere in an uproar.

The small, invisible pin, worn on Senator McCain's lapel has caused some controversy in the religions community for favoring one religion over another.

"I think it's outrageous," snickered Jack Slapenhoop, 54, a Pastafarian and member of the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. "It's disrespectful to my beliefs, and everyone knows there is no such thing as an INVISIBLE unicorn."

while others, like 35 year old Betty Titterquickers, think otherwise, "I find unicorns to be fascinating creatures, I mean, you have to wonder why God left them off the Ark, you know? I guess that's why they're invisible now. Mr. McCain has my vote!"

Of course, all these people are just nutters, this reporter knows his religion is the only true one. Everyone else is just very very very very wrong. and stupid.

If Obama worships a monkey god, he is not a Christian, and his claim to be one is as false as his claim to be the agent of "change."

Regardless of the content of the religion, would it not bother you to find out someone is lying to you about the most important facet of his life?

Kerry,

Lighten up. At worst Obama is being culturally sensitive, and accepting a graciously extended gift. Nothing more than a good diplomat would do.

Of course warmonger Republicans who don't know, and don't wanna know about other cultures can't appreciate any of this.

first Islam, now some Indian religion. -sigh- Obama is an alien.... did you hear? he eats babies.

Get a life.

STUPID TOPIC

I'm just curious as to where the Indians got this idea that Obama is a DEVOTEE of anything. They seem to be declaring it as some kind of common knowledge--which, as far as I know, no one in America was aware of.

I'm just wondering, that's all.

"Lighten up. At worst Obama is being culturally sensitive, and accepting a graciously extended gift. Nothing more than a good diplomat would do."

Are you saying a good Christian can't be a diplomat? Because a sincere Christian can't accept an idol.

I'm not even sure a sitting Senator is allowed to accept a gift like this. The Senate Ethics Code is pretty restrictive when it comes to gifts, and I would think this would have a value exceeding the limit, due to its size, if nothing else.

Please stop, this topic is a silly joke. Literally nobody here cares, because we aren't hillbilly christians.

"Please stop, this topic is a silly joke. Literally nobody here cares, because we aren't hillbilly christians."

That's the best you can do? You don't like the subject, so it's "silly?" Those who disagree with you are "hillbilly Christians?" (Neither of those words, by the way, deserve to be automatically thought of as bad things."

No, it's not the best I can do; it's not worth my time, or anyone else's.

(Neither of those words, by the way, deserve to be automatically thought of as bad things.

Used in the same sentence to describe the same person they do...

Many people in this world have and will die because of uneducated religious people.

"No, it's not the best I can do; it's not worth my time, or anyone else's."

Don't you think it's rather patronizing to decide for other people what is and is not worth THEIR time?

"Many people in this world have and will die because of uneducated religious people."

Not as many as have died because of anti-religious bigotry. Atheistic communism and and fascism killed more people in the last century than all the religious conflicts of history put together.

Don't you think it's rather patronizing to decide for other people what is and is not worth THEIR time?

I didn't decide for other people, I stated my opinion. I also think chewing on barbed wire is not worth anyone's time....oooh, how patronizing! You're so confused.

Not as many as have died because of anti-religious bigotry. Atheistic communism and and fascism killed more people in the last century than all the religious conflicts of history put together.

Oh you don't think Hitler was invoking God with his superior race drivel.

Oh and I would have to say that modern weaponry was the reason more people died, not communism and facism. If the crusaders had bombers and the blitz they would have used them...

How many times do I have to hear this from ignorant people... atheism doesn't have anything to do with killing people, atheism is not an ideology or dogmatic way of living, it is in fact, a LACK of these things.

Stalin may have been an atheist, but it was his communism and dogmatic rule that lead to murder. Hitler and Stalin had moustaches, maybe all men with moustaches kill people and are evil.

There is no part of atheism that leads people to murder like a dogma such as religion or cult of personality because atheism doesn't have any belief system! It's really not hard to understand, I'm sure you understand now.

Actually think it was Stalin's mental state that was the primary cause of so many deaths. Which like SSE has absolutely nothing to do with atheism.

""Don't you think it's rather patronizing to decide for other people what is and is not worth THEIR time?""

"I didn't decide for other people, I stated my opinion. I also think chewing on barbed wire is not worth anyone's time....oooh, how patronizing! You're so confused."

No, I'm not confused. Observe, gentle readers, how the liberal argues. First he declares. Here is the declaration:

"No, it's not the best I can do; it's not worth my time, or anyone else's."

Then, when challenged, he pretends he was only stating an OPINION:

"I didn't decide for other people, I stated my opinion. "

Really? An opinion? I didn't see the words "I think" or "I believe" in this opinion. Nope. No qualifications at all. A declarative statement: IT'S NOT.

So, then, as though to prove this, he pulls out an unrelated faux analogy. But watch carefully--this time he DOES offer an OPINION:

"I also think chewing on barbed wire is not worth anyone's time....oooh, how patronizing!"

I also "THINK." THAT is in fact an OPINION. But the statement we are discussing was not.

You are not patronizing to THINK whatever you like about barbed wire. But you are patronizing to presume to THINK something about the discussion on behalf of SOMEONE ELSE:

"it's not worth my time, or anyone else's."

""Not as many as have died because of anti-religious bigotry. Atheistic communism and and fascism killed more people in the last century than all the religious conflicts of history put together.""

"Oh you don't think Hitler was invoking God with his superior race drivel."

No, of course not. Hitler had no use for God or religion whatsoever. He dabbled in the occult, but he did whatever he could to drive out observant religious people--Jews, Christians, and others. Not based on God--but based on the superiority of a particular RACE.

"Oh and I would have to say that modern weaponry was the reason more people died, not communism and facism."

Have you ever heard of the cultural revolution? Pol Pot? Stalin? What does modern weaponry have to do with them?

"If the crusaders had bombers and the blitz they would have used them..."

Stalin murdered millions of people without using bombers or "the blitz." (By the way, your use of "the blitz" is curious, as though you think it is some kind of weapon, when in fact it was a specific bombing campaign. As a rhetorical tool, it's rather like saying, "oh, if only Alexander the Great had had watercraft and D-Day!")

"How many times do I have to hear this from ignorant people... atheism doesn't have anything to do with killing people, atheism is not an ideology or dogmatic way of living, it is in fact, a LACK of these things."

No, it is a dogmatic insistence on philosophical materialism. It allows for no transcendence, which in religion serves as a curb to the savage tendencies of man to act out of pure selfishness.

"Stalin may have been an atheist, but it was his communism and dogmatic rule that lead to murder."

Communism requires atheism.

"Hitler and Stalin had moustaches, maybe all men with moustaches kill people and are evil."

And there's another false argument from liberalism. There is no philosophical connection between mustaches and evil behavior--but there is a clear philosophical link between atheism and communism, one which Marx made explicit.

Dialectical materialism requires atheism; historical materialism assumes it; absolute humanism is guided by a conviction that there is nothing greater than man. Now, you can argue with Eric Fromm if you want, or show me that Marx didn't mean what he said in the 1844 essays, I don't see how you can deny that a straight reading of Marx insists on an underlying humanist and atheistic worldview for the revolution to succeed.

"There is no part of atheism that leads people to murder like a dogma such as religion or cult of personality because atheism doesn't have any belief system!"

Because atheism has "no" belief system, it denies the belief system that behaves in an irrationally benevolent way and seeks to stamp it out (or has in every historical case in which it has been allowed to rule.) Without a concept of the sanctity of human life, there is no rational reason to preserve any particular individual life, only to make sre there are enough living beings to continue the species.

Atheism is a soulless, materialist philosophy that offers no justification for altruism, kindness, self-denying behaviors, or anything we associate with the traditions of Judeo-Christian Western civilization. The project does not require a transcendent justification, because the revolutionary impulse justifies itself.

In the name of the revolution--because it is aimed at the ultimate end (in the good sense, not the terminal one) of mankind, to utterly fulfill the potential of man--everything becomes justifiable.

And I never said that atheism requires communism; but communism demands atheism.

Without a concept of the sanctity of human life, there is no rational reason to preserve any particular individual life, only to make sre there are enough living beings to continue the species.

And observe, reasonable readers, that the religious basketcase can't grasp an understanding of the rational reasons for preseving life without her sky hooks to save her. There is no rational way to reach her, she is seduced by her irrational beliefs about God-men. It's really sad that you can't grasp this stuff without Jebus.

“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

“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

Indeed to the founder of communist doctrines, Karl Marx (1818-1883), atheism, was just a stage on the path to communism, and it was ultimately "unreal" and "no longer needed" by socialism and communism. [9] This is what Karl Marx himself said about atheism:

Atheism as a denial of this unreality; has no longer any meaning, for atheism is a denial of God and tries to assert through this negation the existence of man; but socialism as such no longer needs this mediation...

If Karl Marx, the intellectual founder of Marxism and communism, repudiated atheism as meaningless and no longer needed, how then could atheism be considered the cause of the atrocities committed under communism?.

-http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/hitlerstalin.html#10

I missed this idiocy:

Atheism is a soulless, materialist philosophy

Stop being an idiot, atheism is not a philosophy. IT IS THE LACK OF BELIEF. It does not carry any "core beliefs" or have a book of rules. Atheists can be conservatives or liberals, democrats or republicans.

You are wrong about this, you've always been wrong about this and will continue to be wrong about this, I'll continue to call you out on it. Concede this now, admit you are wrong and stop being a nitwit.

"And observe, reasonable readers, that the religious basketcase can't grasp an understanding of the rational reasons for preseving life without her sky hooks to save her."

Why don't you explain to us what the "rational" reasons are to preserve human life when it does not serve your own interests?

What would you expect Hitler to say about religion, in a country that was only barely ready to reject Christianity for nationalist socialism? As Hitler's power grew, he mentioned less and less about religion.

And historians know that Hitler's private conversations--of which there were many, Hitler having a habit of forcing his friends to stay up all night listening to him talk--reveal him to be anything but a respecter of religions. He particularly despised Christianity, and jailed or killed everyone he could find that represented a religious danger to his stranglehold on the cultural philosophy of the Reich.

If you take Hitler's word for his real beliefs out of the declamations he made to the people he was persuading to become his acolytes, you probably believe that Barack Obama has "always" believed in the individual right of the Second Amendment. Ha.

""Indeed to the founder of communist doctrines, Karl Marx (1818-1883), atheism, was just a stage on the path to communism, and it was ultimately "unreal" and "no longer needed" by socialism and communism. [9] This is what Karl Marx himself said about atheism:

Atheism as a denial of this unreality; has no longer any meaning, for atheism is a denial of God and tries to assert through this negation the existence of man; but socialism as such no longer needs this mediation...

""If Karl Marx, the intellectual founder of Marxism and communism, repudiated atheism as meaningless and no longer needed, how then could atheism be considered the cause of the atrocities committed under communism?.""

Did you even READ that? He doesn't "repudiate" atheism, he asserts that socialism no longer needs this "mediation"--atheism is a middle passage INTO socialism. If socialism is ESTABLISHED, it no longer needs to maintain atheism, because the essence of atheism is subsumed into the reality of revolutionary socialism.

"Stop being an idiot, atheism is not a philosophy. IT IS THE LACK OF BELIEF."

That's a nice thing to believe, but unless you somehow restrict the meaning of "philosophy," you can't get away with it. Emma Goldman was so convinced it was a philosophy that she wrote a very interesting essay called "The Philosophy of Atheism." I would have to take her word for it over yours, because at last she has thought quite deeply about it.

"It does not carry any "core beliefs" or have a book of rules."

YOu don't need a "book of rules" to have a pphilosophy. You just need a perspective. Do you contend that you have no perspective that is informed by your atheism?

"Atheists can be conservatives or liberals, democrats or republicans." So can everyone else. That has no bearing on the question of whether atheism is a philosophy or not.

"You are wrong about this, you've always been wrong about this and will continue to be wrong about this, I'll continue to call you out on it. Concede this now, admit you are wrong and stop being a nitwit."

Waaah. Now stamp your feet and leave the room. Your argument has no premises or progression, only a presumably self-evident conclusion.

Waaah. Now stamp your feet and leave the room. Your argument has no premises or progression, only a presumably self-evident conclusion.

Like all of your theist arguements! TRF is right about you and irony! Nice one!

Now, read these words very carefully:

theism = belief in god.

theist = a person who believes in god.

The letter a as a prefix = Without; not:

Ipso facto, atheism = without belief in a god; not belief in god.

atheist = a person who is without belief in a god.

It's very simple my dear, no need to bring up some author I don't give a shit about, just understand the language and we'll be okay. Now, if that's it for the lesson, class is dismissed.

That, sweetness, IS a "philosophy."

And I really think you ought to look into some of the history of the belief system you claim to have (or, if you will, NOT have). There is a history of atheism AS a philosophy, people went to great pains to develop it, and you ought not to dismiss them just because you choose to take a pre-existent concept and redefine it.There is a philosophical typology of atheism, different types of atheism, and disagreement as to what it means even among those who pioneered the concept.

As is the case with most "philosophies."

By the way, if you haven't read any Emma Goldman (or don't even know who she is) you are missing someone you would probably find quite wonderful.

""Don't you think it's rather patronizing to decide for other people what is and is not worth THEIR time?"" blah blah blah

Your brilliant parsing of words to make a tiny point is sad and pathetic, because for all your wordiness, you are still stupidly wrong. How can I tell? Read the first sentence of this comment...am I expressing opinions, or facts? Do I really have to say "I think" to express an opinion? No, I don't. When I said you are sad and pathetic, that is my opinion (and one that any reasonable person will share, but that's another matter). If this hurts your brain too much, you might want to try some ice.

There is a history of atheism AS a philosophy

Be careful about talking about things you don't understand (since you are not an atheist, you cannot understand...I believe you employed this warped bit of reasoning against brit on another thread). Yes, there is a philosophy of atheism, but atheism itself is NOT a philosophy. It is a lack of belief in god, plain and simple, and this IS the position of the atheistic community. There are volumes of philosophy and discussion that orbit around this concept, but the word "atheism" describes something fairly simple. Just like there is "science" and "philosophy of science". See how that works?

As for "it" being a "soulless, materialistic philosophy", you would have to specify which philosophy of atheism you are referring to (not mine, certainly ;)). Of course, by definition, you would apply that description to all of them, so I guess your statement is kind of devoid of meaningful content.

I'm sure you said a bunch of other stupid things, but that's all I caught on the skim. SSE, why argue this stuff with Kerry? Would you debate a schizophrenic on the existence of aliens in his pants? This doesn't describe all believers, but it is certainly an apt comparison, here.

No, of course not. Hitler had no use for God or religion whatsoever. He dabbled in the occult, but he did whatever he could to drive out observant religious people--Jews, Christians, and others. Not based on God--but based on the superiority of a particular RACE.

Oh for fuck's sake! I just HAD to skim a little more, didn't I? If breaking Godwin's Law was a crime, Kerry would be dead already.

The whole atheism-is-evil-due-to-Hitler discussion is a stupid red herring. Whether or not Hitler was atheistic is completely insignificant to me. I am willing to admit that people will do evil things to each other for more reasons than just religious rationalizations and mythologies. There are other reasons! But your points about Naziism and Communism are silly, unless you can demonstrate that atheism is a slippery slope that must lead to such discredited philosophies (that distinction between "atheism" and "philosophy" is important here). A mere "could" is insufficient, in light of the history of christianity.

Hell, who cares? What matters is not which philosophy/outlook makes you cozy every night, or brings world peace...but what is true. Atheists make a mistake whenever they back away from this point. After all, atheism is not out to make you smile. Sorry, the truth isn't always like that. If atheism inevitably led to Naziism, but was correct, it would still be correct.

"The whole atheism-is-evil-due-to-Hitler discussion is a stupid red herring."

Indeed. Because the argument is actually Hitler-is-evil-due-to-atheism.

And, you are mistaken on another point. Atheism is not (as you put it) TRUE. It is merely theoretical. And therefore, even in your formulation, no more or less valid or valuable than theism.

"Atheism is not (as you put it) TRUE. It is merely theoretical."

Why, yes, using reason and not including mythology, oh sorry yes, go ahead...

"And therefore, even in your formulation, no more or less valid or valuable than theism."

Bzzzzt!

Wraaaang! it is MUCH more valuable than theism because it doesn't say THIS IS HOW WE CAME TO BE, OR ELSE. It doesn't try to fill in gaps, atheists know there are gaps but don't need the warm and fuzzy feeling to fill them in with GOD-MEN.

But it is no less valid to "fill them in with God-Men (whatever that means)" than to REFUSE to do so, based on mere preference.

Choosing NOT to believe in God is no more theoretically valid than choosing TO believe in God.

In other words, rejecting the entire possibility of something that is not provable one way or another is just as illogical as accepting it AS possibility. In fact, it is more illogical, because it is more likely that there is something that one does NOT know about than to assume that one knows EVERYTHING necessary.

If you reject a possibility, you are asserting that it cannot be. But you cannot know the universe of that which CAN be, so how is it not illogical to reject even the POSSIBILITY of something which you cannot prove?

But if you accept the possibility of the thing you do not know, then you must deal with the arguments for it within their own systems of logic--which you refuse to do.

Thus, the atheist is more dogmatic than the theist, and less logical.

As Fella mentioned, referring to your dismissal of what brit said concerning Christianity, you have no idea what you're talking about when discussing atheism.

"Choosing NOT to believe in God is no more theoretically valid than choosing TO believe in God."

There are a multitude of religions to chose from, from the dawn of man, there is no rationally clear choice of which one could be correct and science. Reason and discovery in general lean far and away from any single religion. You are devout in your Christianity, Fine, but there is no way to say it is more valid than the now dead, Greek or Norse religions.

"In other words, rejecting the entire possibility of something that is not provable one way or another is just as illogical as accepting it AS possibility."

Ah ha! you stumble. I and many other atheists are very much open to proof. I'm sorry, there is no proof no matter how much you fuss, a Muslim could be in your place and argue just as passionately about the proof that Mohammad was the great prophet; you both have no proof to claim the truth of your beliefs. The atheist sees there are a lot of religions and religious people. They see how some of the adherents get angry at people who don't believe what they do throughout history and how every type thinks only theirs is the true religion. The atheist doesn't buy that.

Personally I am wowed by the possibilities of science, specifically in biology and astronomy, uncovering the earthly and heavenly past in the most rational way humans have been able to, using scientific method.

"In fact, it is more illogical, because it is more likely that there is something that one does NOT know about than to assume that one knows EVERYTHING necessary."

Yes, I'm glad you brought this up. This is precisely why it is foolish to think you can find all the answers to life in a book from Bronze and Iron ages. The book claims exactly what you yourself here say is illogical, it's exactly the OPPOSITE of what being rational and scientific is. A person such as myself never claims to have all the answers, holy shit there is a lot of stuff we don't know! Looking at that ancient book and thinking that it has all the answers, when it was written in a time ages before people thought the world was round, or that we actually revolved around the sun or that we're NOT the center of the universe, or even the galaxy, is really very illogical. Great point.

"If you reject a possibility, you are asserting that it cannot be."

Yes, I reject the possibility of any currently practiced religion being the true religion.

"But you cannot know the universe of that which CAN be, so how is it not illogical to reject even the POSSIBILITY of something which you cannot prove?

I don't reject the possibility. I am atheist in name, but if you had to really think about it, you're correct and I would be an agnostic. Put my agnosticism on a scale of 1 to 6, one being "Yes, there most certainly is a God and six being "No, there most certainly is not a God. On that scale, I would be a 5.8 or 5.9 Because I understand, exactly what you're saying, I cannot say I am a 6. No one can be a six, people think they are, but it's impossible, just as being number one, but people do and many of those people can be very dangerous.

"But if you accept the possibility of the thing you do not know, then you must deal with the arguments for it within their own systems of logic--which you refuse to do."

What I refuse to do is play your silly games regarding mythology and I've already explained the logic above. What you need to do is examine the proof, real proof. It's not there, but what you do have is faith, because that's what's important to you.

"Thus, the atheist is more dogmatic than the theist, and less logical.

This is completely untrue as shown above. Because the theist chooses not to accept the possibilities of other religions being true or the possibility of no religion being true, they in fact, are obviously much less logical than the theist.

That last line should obviously be

"they in fact, are obviously much less logical than the atheist."

"As Fella mentioned, referring to your dismissal of what brit said concerning Christianity, you have no idea what you're talking about when discussing atheism."

Ah, but I do. I have been one, you see, and atheism does not even require an "experiential" dimension, because that would be illogical and emotional. I have studied the little buggers, been one, and learned why they are wrong.

""Choosing NOT to believe in God is no more theoretically valid than choosing TO believe in God.""

"There are a multitude of religions to chose from, from the dawn of man, there is no rationally clear choice of which one could be correct and science."

The only way you can validly say that is if you are knowledgeable of all religions from the dawn of man. Since you are knowledgeable of none of them, you are clearly speaking beyond your level of expertise, and it would be illogical to give your claims any credence.

"Reason and discovery in general lean far and away from any single religion."

Do you know every single religion? If not, you have no standing to say this, scientifically speaking. All of your comments on religions are unscientific, based only on second-hand knowledge, rumor, and innuendo.

"You are devout in your Christianity, Fine, but there is no way to say it is more valid than the now dead, Greek or Norse religions."

Why not? Just because you refuse to examine the internal consistency of a philosophy does not mean it has none.

"In other words, rejecting the entire possibility of something that is not provable one way or another is just as illogical as accepting it AS possibility."

"Ah ha! you stumble. I and many other atheists are very much open to proof."

But you are not open to examining the validity of theology from within its own logical system--because you refuse to even look at that system. Thus, you have no way of knowing whether it is valid or not.

"I'm sorry, there is no proof no matter how much you fuss, a Muslim could be in your place and argue just as passionately about the proof that Mohammad was the great prophet; you both have no proof to claim the truth of your beliefs."

We are talking about logical consistency, not proof. In fact, I thought I stipulated at the outset that the existence of God can be neither proven nor disproven. And besides that, whether the Muslim or the Christian is right has no bearing on that on which they agree (which is what we were talking about)--the existence of God.

"The atheist sees there are a lot of religions and religious people. They see how some of the adherents get angry at people who don't believe what they do throughout history and how every type thinks only theirs is the true religion. The atheist doesn't buy that."

And the non-atheists see a lot of confused people whose only belief is that there is no God. And they don't buy that. So what?

"Personally I am wowed by the possibilities of science, specifically in biology and astronomy, uncovering the earthly and heavenly past in the most rational way humans have been able to, using scientific method."

An invention of theists, designed to discover God's created world.

""In fact, it is more illogical, because it is more likely that there is something that one does NOT know about than to assume that one knows EVERYTHING necessary.""

"Yes, I'm glad you brought this up. This is precisely why it is foolish to think you can find all the answers to life in a book from Bronze and Iron ages."

Why? I am not claiming that *I* know everything, but that *God* does. What God has written in His Book is not the entirety of His Truth--merely that which He chose to tell us. But all of what is there IS truth.

"The book claims exactly what you yourself here say is illogical, it's exactly the OPPOSITE of what being rational and scientific is."

No, as I explained above, it isn't.

"A person such as myself never claims to have all the answers.."

But you do claim to have ONE--that there is no God.

"There is a lot of stuff we don't know! Looking at that ancient book and thinking that it has all the answers, when it was written in a time ages before people thought the world was round, or that we actually revolved around the sun or that we're NOT the center of the universe, or even the galaxy, is really very illogical. Great point."

But if you were to look into the matter, you would find that it has a great many answers. I doubt anyone says "all." It merely has all the answers we need to know.

""If you reject a possibility, you are asserting that it cannot be.""

"Yes, I reject the possibility of any currently practiced religion being the true religion."

But on what basis?

""But you cannot know the universe of that which CAN be, so how is it not illogical to reject even the POSSIBILITY of something which you cannot prove?""

"I don't reject the possibility. I am atheist in name, but if you had to really think about it, you're correct and I would be an agnostic. Put my agnosticism on a scale of 1 to 6, one being "Yes, there most certainly is a God and six being "No, there most certainly is not a God. On that scale, I would be a 5.8 or 5.9 Because I understand, exactly what you're saying, I cannot say I am a 6. No one can be a six, people think they are, but it's impossible, just as being number one, but people do and many of those people can be very dangerous."

Ah, but if indeed there is a Deity, then your living as though there is not is the equivalent of being a 6. If not, it's just you thinking about something that has no consequence at all.

""But if you accept the possibility of the thing you do not know, then you must deal with the arguments for it within their own systems of logic--which you refuse to do.""

"What I refuse to do is play your silly games regarding mythology and I've already explained the logic above. What you need to do is examine the proof, real proof. It's not there, but what you do have is faith, because that's what's important to you."

Why do you refer to that which is archeologically proven as "mythology?" What particular portions of the Bible do you think of as mythological?

""Thus, the atheist is more dogmatic than the theist, and less logical.""

"This is completely untrue as shown above. Because the theist chooses not to accept the possibilities of other religions being true or the possibility of no religion being true, they in fact, are obviously much less logical than the theist."

No, they are not. Because they have chosen to believe in the existence of God does not mean they will forever continue in the same (if you will) quadrant of that belief system. The theist is, in fact, open to correction--as we can see by the Jewish believers who became Christians, based on the fulfillment of their own Scriptures.

The believer is open to new works of God--perhaps not so enthusiastically at first, bur after a while--and does not necessarily follow any particular systematic theology. Many theists today are either unaffiliated with a belief system, or adhere to one without faithfully following its tenets. The threshhold point we are dealing with here is mere belief in some kind of God. Surely the belief that there is some kind of Deity is more open-minded than the near insistence on the Deity's non-existence.

As for proof, what proof is there of the non-existence of God? Who can testify to His not-ness? What book predicts and fulfills His absence from the earth or of the history of man?

At least, the major religions have some documentation to back them up.

You've again clearly demonstrated how much of a hypocrite you are. You make the point that even though I can be a Christian earlier in my life, being an atheist now, I can't understand Christianity. You on the other hand, being an "atheist" when you were younger and then born again, know atheism is wrong and Christianity is the right path. The irrationality is in FULL view, no need to explain how. We all see it, I've got it underlined, that's all a rational person needs to laugh and your flawed logic.

Otherwise, this response is exactly what I expected. Oh well, the intelligent readers can see who makes the more rational and logical argument, it's too bad they'll have to scroll up a bit now to see it. ;)

Since this is how it's always going to be, I'm increasing my rudeness toward your statements in these conversations, you're obviously not able to grasp these concepts because you're blinded by your warm and fuzzy religion. Satirical and sardonic criticism await.

Jesus, yeah, Jesus, I'm talking to you!

You's a God-man yeah.

Da na na na na na DA DA

GOD MAN!!!!

Da na na na na na DA DA

GOD MAN!!!

Why do all of your followers arguments horrible and are hypocritical?

What? oh, it's because they're delusional and Christianity is a lie.

Oh, that's what I thought, you should tell them, idiot.

I have many Christian friends and love them. I'd do anything for them. If they get in my face about their beliefs though, they won't get anywhere with me. Adult fairy tales, that's it.

We are talking about logical consistency, not proof. In fact, I thought I stipulated at the outset that the existence of God can be neither proven nor disproven.

Speaking of inconsistent:

Why? I am not claiming that *I* know everything, but that *God* does. What God has written in His Book is not the entirety of His Truth--merely that which He chose to tell us. But all of what is there IS truth.

In this quote, you STILL go against what you said in the previous post, just another of the countless examples of how you're a hypocrite in terms of your theology.

note, in the original comment by me I said YOU can *FIND* all the answers in the book. That doesn't mean I said YOU know everything. I always pay attention to the way you write because you love changing how things are said and putting words in people's mouths.

I dunno SSE, if Kerry goes for the vaunted "I'm rubber, you're glue" defense, you're fucked.

I used to love this site.

"You've again clearly demonstrated how much of a hypocrite you are. You make the point that even though I can be a Christian earlier in my life, being an atheist now, I can't understand Christianity."

True.

"You on the other hand, being an "atheist" when you were younger and then born again, know atheism is wrong and Christianity is the right path."

Also true.

"The irrationality is in FULL view, no need to explain how. We all see it, I've got it underlined, that's all a rational person needs to laugh and your flawed logic."

Ah, but you miss the point. The "knowing" of Christianity REQUIRES experience, even current and active experience--indeed, it cannot be without experience, nor can it be sustained by past experience. But the rationality of atheism CANNOT require any such experience, or it ceases to be rational.

It's a nasty trick, but y'all set yourself up for it.

"You's a God-man yeah."

Yes, He is. Glad you got that point. He made it so many times they crucified Him for it.

"I have many Christian friends and love them."

Given that you called their Savior, "idiot," either they are not Christians, or you are not their friend. This is how you treat your friends?

"I'd do anything for them."

Except refrains from blaspheming their Lord and Savior. That's just too much of a stretch.

"If they get in my face about their beliefs though, they won't get anywhere with me. Adult fairy tales, that's it."

You mean if they take their faith seriously? Wonderful friend you are, I bet.

""We are talking about logical consistency, not proof. In fact, I thought I stipulated at the outset that the existence of God can be neither proven nor disproven.""

"Speaking of inconsistent:

""Why? I am not claiming that *I* know everything, but that *God* does. What God has written in His Book is not the entirety of His Truth--merely that which He chose to tell us. But all of what is there IS truth.""

In this quote, you STILL go against what you said in the previous post, just another of the countless examples of how you're a hypocrite in terms of your theology.

note, in the original comment by me I said YOU can *FIND* all the answers in the book. That doesn't mean I said YOU know everything. I always pay attention to the way you write because you love changing how things are said and putting words in people's mouths."

Again, you have missed the point. It is not that ALL of the answers are in the Bible (or that you can FIND all the answers in the Bible.) You can find GUIDANCE for everything in the Bible, and all the ANSWERS that you need--though not perhaps to all the questions you choose to ask.

Star Spangled is doing a good job.

I'd like to contribute.

Public discussion of ideas can't be anarchy. Not all views are equal. We don't accept arbitrary opinions in legal matters. We want policemen to actually do some research to solve a crime, and not just come up with whatever view of who did it suits them. We want doctors to actually investigate our illnesses and not just tell us what came to them in a dream. We would not be happy if they attempted those alternate strategies and, when we showed disapproval, they said "that isn't fair - you can't prove us wrong".

It we are to deal with life sensibly, we can't go around justifying points of view (especially claims for invisible extras, like Gods) on the basis that they can't be disproved, because that allows almost anything. We have to ask for real useful evidence.

That useful evidence does not involve personal revelation or spiritual experience. That is no guide to anything, as our brains are actually pretty feeble (heck, most of us need to slow down if we try and walk and use a mobile phone), and they just make stuff up. We have daydreams, we have delusions. The well-known writer and skeptic Michael Shermer once cycled to the point of exhaustion and hallucinated that he was abducted by aliens.

It is like we are almost blindly groping in a fog of delusion, and all we should believe is what we find others can corroborate. I'll believe there is a real rock in the fog when I have kicked it and when others have said they have kicked it too.

So, given all that, atheism based on scepticism is without any doubt the sensible default position, because it is a minimalist position. We aren't forced to choose between different Gods. We first want the possibility of any god shown.

Given that, default position, we can then start exploring reality. First, we need some kind of real evidence that there is anything beyond the physical world. After that, we can tentatively start to discuss Gods.

Given that you called their Savior, "idiot," either they are not Christians, or you are not their friend. This is how you treat your friends?

No, it's how I treat their silly fairy tales.

Except refrains from blaspheming their Lord and Savior. That's just too much of a stretch

I said I'd do anything for them, but I specified that when they push their myths into my face, they aint got an audience. I don't care Jesus, who was just some guy who made false claims.

You mean if they take their faith seriously? Wonderful friend you are, I bet.

Yeah, do I have to repeat myself? You seem to respond so stupidly to what I write, like you can't read or something. Let's examine closely for you:

"If they get in my face about their beliefs though, they won't get anywhere with me."

Hmm, so if they want me to take their faith seriously WHILE GETTING IN MY FACE, they won't have any luck. Getting in my face means, being pushy about it and being close minded, exactly like you do. I may get pushy, but I'm pushy about being rational and not believing some dusty book contains all the important parts of living. It is so obvious that there is so much information we humans have learned before and since the bible that it's sad that so many people limit their brains to ignore the obvious. This leads into your last sentence:

You can find GUIDANCE for everything in the Bible, and all the ANSWERS that you need

There are a few things missing concerning health, biology, technology, physics and the universe that are sometimes addressed in that book, but as research and rationalism have proven, are dead myths and just plain BULLSHIT.

"There are a few things missing concerning health, biology, technology, physics and the universe that are sometimes addressed in that book, but as research and rationalism have proven, are dead myths and just plain BULLSHIT."

Where, exactly, (not counting figures of speech or no longer valid cultural contest) is it provably WRONG?

Whichever translation of the Bible you look at it is not hard to find errors. The texts are full of internal contradictions as well as historical and scientific inaccuracies...

There are so many examples it is hard to know where to start. Take its cosmology: according to the Bible, the earth is flat and immovable, the moon emits its own light, the sky is solid and the stars can be shaken from the sky by earthquakes...

The value of pi is given as 3, even though many other cultures had already worked it out with greater precision...

Its biology is no better. The Bible claims that rabbits chew the cud, that the pattern of goats' coats can be changed by what their parents look at while copulating, that only dead seeds can germinate and that ostriches are careless parents.

Fundamentalists try to explain away some of these examples in the light of what we now know: pi is approximately three, they point out, while rabbits eat their own droppings, which is a bit like chewing the cud. But such explanations essentially admit that the Bible is not the ultimate source of of reliable truths about the world...

from: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13695-evolution-myths-the-theory-is-wrong-because-the-bible-is-inerrant.html

"The world is flat and has four corners. Ezekiel 7:2"

More at

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html

Wow, SSE. I would have expected better from you. That's not what Ezekiel 7:2 says. This is what it says (this, by the way, includes 7:1, for context):

"Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 'Also, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD unto the land of Israel; An end, the end is come upon the four corners of the land.'"

This is God speaking to Ezekiel the prophet. He is speaking of "the land" of Israel--not THE WORLD. The usage of "four corners" would have meant from one end to the other, on both sides--thus, the whole of the territory of which we speak. "The end" of which He speaks is the doom of the land, due to the disobedience of the people that live there, by the way. And He does not mean "the land" will be ended, but that the PEOPLE will be.

That was pathetic, SSE.

Here are a few other things your source got wrong:

"God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day."

I'll let Dinesh D'Souza field this one:

"But it turns out that there is no mistake. The universe was created in a burst of light fifteen billion years ago. Our sun and our planet came into existence billions of years later. So light did indeed precede the sun. The first reference to light in Genesis 1:3 can be seen to refer to the Big Bang itself. The separation of the day and the night described in Genesis 1:4 clearly refers to the formation of the sun and the earth. Day and night--which we experience as a result of the earth's rotation--were indeed created much later than the universe itself. The Genesis enigma is solved, and its account of the creation is vindicated not as some vague parable but as a strikingly accurate account of how the universe came to be." (What's So Great About Christianity, p. 123.)

Next. "It took the Israelites 40 years to travel from Egypt to Canaan, yet such a journey, even at that time, would have taken no more than ten days."

This is hardly a problem for the text. It is well understood by theologians--and made clear in the text itself--that the Israelites were set to wander in the wilderness until they were ready to be a people of their own, within regions where there were others. The usual phrase is "God sent them for 40 years on a journey that shouldn't have taken 40 days." This was because the Israelites, after long captivity, had to learn survival and self-governance. Otherwise, the first other tribe they ran into would have wiped them out. God's plan was to preserve His people, not get them all killed.

"The Israelite population went from seventy (Ex.1:5) to several million (over 600,000 adult males) in just a few generations!"

This is a pretty wide interpretation of "a few generations." In fact, the Bible says that the Israelites were in captivity far longer than that:

"Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, [was] four hundred and thirty years." (Ex. 12:40)

If each of the seventy sires ten (not uncommon in those times--remember, there are 12 tribes of Israel, from the 12 sons of Abraham), 600,000 is achievable fairly quickly. A generation being about 40 years, it would take far less than ten to reach such a point. Even when you remove one of every fourth generation.

Many of the verses your source cites are not challenged, only ridiculed in some way. However, it does not provide any reason not to accept them as written. For example:

"God strikes Miriam with leprosy. (In the Bible, leprosy is caused by the wrath of God or the malice of Satan.)"

What, exactly, is the problem with that? Your source merely assumes that this is objectionable, but doesn't say why.

By the way, the Bible doesn't say word one about the value of pi. We have inferred it from a 1 Kings text that was not intended for an audience of mathematicians.

Next time, check your sources.

D'Souza huh?

That quote you use refers to the big bang and speaks of millions of years. I disagree with D'Souza and he's been badly beaten in debate (of course you'll disagree) but are you saying that you don't believe in that 6000 year old earth crap? I mean, looking at this D'Souza quote it seems like you're accepting the scientific truth of the actual age of the earth and the universe, if so, I have greatly increased respect for you.

I probably won't post for a few days, so have a good Independence Day!

I don't really take a position on the age of the earth. I don't think that the Bible necessarily requires that we interpret the word "day" in the days of creation as what we would now call an ordinary "day." After all, the term "day of the Lord" clearly refers to something that is not a literal day, in the prophetic writings.

But I do think most everyone agrees on the time frame the Bible covers from Abraham onward. The archeological evidence seems to back up the "BCE" timeframes moving backwards from Jesus.

By the way, Dinesh didn't invent the "Big Bang." It's much more universally accepted than global warming. Are you saying you are (you'll excuse the expression in a political forum) a "steady statist?"

Ah, well, Enough for now. My kids want to get ready to blow stuff up. Happy Independence Day! (And, really, do see 1776. The "Tobacco to Rum to Slaves" song and the "Mama" song are worth the price of admission in and of themselves.)