2

12/16/2008 8:01:24 AM

Quote :

"No, I'm very well adjusted, but some of my friends, (and sadly, some family,) are not. They, in my opinion, are suffering from a belief in god. I'd like not-so-much for them to stop believing in god, but rather for them to not be suffering. It's almost like they'd prefer to not believe in god, but don't know how. It's hard to watch. I suppose many god followers view the "atheist camp" as a bunch of stubborn know-it-alls with their heels dug in the ground. I can't express in words how much I feel that the opposite is overwhelmingly the case."

Riiiiight.

[Edited on December 16, 2008 at 8:04 AM. Reason : Can't say I'm suffering from a belief in God - I came to it of my own free will.]

12/16/2008 8:04:17 AM

Quote :

"Riiiiight"

Wow, five 'i's? You win.

Quote :

"Can't say I'm suffering from..... I came to it of my own free will"

Funny.... Addicts say the same thing.

Quote :

"...I'd be happy to take your questions..."

I've got a question. To be fair, I'll answer it first.
The question is: "What would it take for you to switch from monotheist to atheist? (or from atheist to monotheist?) Give a specific example."

My answer: For me to switch from atheist to monotheist, god would literally have to appear and do miracles.
Something like:
"Hi there. Are you an atheist like me?"
"No. I'm not."
"Well, how do you know there really is a god?"
"Because he's right behind you."
**I turn around, and god is floating there**
"I am God."
"No way, is this a hologram or something?"
**I start to float in the air. God stops time. Angels descend from the clouds playing harps. I shit my pants. God magically turns the shit into a little mouse, that crawls onto my shoulder and starts singing along with the angels.**
"No, my son, I am the Creator."
"Yes, my Lord."
**I bow before him, no longer an atheist.**


OK, now your turn. "What would it take for you to switch from monotheist to atheist? Give a specific example."

12/16/2008 8:42:10 AM

ITT cddweller experiences cognitive dissonance

12/16/2008 8:43:52 AM

Quote :

"Do you like Old Testament God or New Testament God better?"

Both.

Quote :

"Are atheists just wasting their time trying to explain to you all that there simply is no god? "

My father was an atheist and raised me as one. If you consider spending effort on a thing and having it change because of your will a productive use of time, then my father did not waste his time on me. That is, until my conversion, then his did become a waste of time. In all seriousness, though, atheists are not wasting time arguing the God vs. Creation debate with Christians at all. It is an engaging and enlightening struggle that has enormous potential for converting nonbelievers. Many professors in the maths and sciences at State told me how the deeper they forged for an answer to existence, the closer they came to believing (and several do believe in God). True faith is forged from hot fire, so the harder the argument, the more I pay attention. The more an atheist stands to correct me, the more I am forced to reconsider my faith in a new light.

Quote :

"Do you actually think for a second that you matter?"

I do.

Quote :

"Why aren't you people better at remaining skeptical, in general?"

There a lot of skeptic Christians.

Quote :

"Aren't you disturbed, or at least a bit concerned about the elementary school logic that your best and brightest seem to routinely employ? "

Elementary or not, logic is logic. I don't think you meant to admit that Christians employ logic at all...

Quote :

"Why do all you god followers do it? "

We feel compelled to spread the message of salvation to those who don't believe.

Quote :

"They, in my opinion, are suffering from a belief in god. "

Faith is hard. A lot of us suffer. Christianity goes against human nature and so it's a constant struggle for us, but it's all part of the game.

12/16/2008 9:18:51 AM

Quote :

"What would it take for you to switch from monotheist to atheist? (or from atheist to monotheist?) Give a specific example"

Nothing from mono to atheist. From atheist to mono, it took an opening of a connection between myself and God.

12/16/2008 9:20:21 AM

why is this thread in chit chat?

12/16/2008 9:21:08 AM

I... wanted to chat about God?

12/16/2008 9:21:42 AM

do you agree with this quote? it's one of my favorites (miguel de unamuno):

Quote :

"Those who believe that they believe in God, but without passion in their hearts, without anguish in mind, without uncertainty, without doubt, without an element of despair even in their consolation, believe only in the God idea, not God Himself."

also, i really like this one (einstein):

Quote :

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

between those two, you have my personal form of christianity and the reason i don't subscribe to a particular denomination, but consider myself a fairly devout christian overall

12/16/2008 9:24:38 AM

I agree with those.

12/16/2008 9:26:03 AM

Quote :

"Nothing"

Nothing? It's absolutely impossible? There is no imaginable scenario where you would became atheist?

12/16/2008 9:31:45 AM

^ you mean like god coming down and saying that he doesn't exist? because, regardless of which faith you subscribe to, if you really have faith in it, the point is that the faith is (supposed to be) unshakable

jeebus, you people need to take a world religions course

[Edited on December 16, 2008 at 9:36 AM. Reason : qualified]

12/16/2008 9:33:59 AM

I don't get why so many atheist find it necessary to try and convert people. I would consider myself an agnostic atheist. I get why religious people want to convert more to their way, but I see no reason to try and convince others to my ways. Why does it matter to atheists if others believe in God? If we atheists are right, then there is no harm in other people believing in a God except for <insert catholic altar boy sexual assualt joke here>.

Quote :

"No, I'm very well adjusted, but some of my friends, (and sadly, some family,) are not. They, in my opinion, are suffering from a belief in god. I'd like not-so-much for them to stop believing in god, but rather for them to not be suffering. It's almost like they'd prefer to not believe in god, but don't know how. It's hard to watch."

If they were not "suffering" by believing in god, they'd be "suffering" for another reason. I think that has more to do with the type of person than the religion they follow. Or it could be depression or something like that.

[Edited on December 16, 2008 at 9:55 AM. Reason : ]

12/16/2008 9:53:24 AM

^^
That's sorta my point... It doesn't make sense, and it can't be challenged by logic. It exists outside of logic. Aside from the historical relevance, social/governmental connection, and mere power in number, faith in one particular god or gods is no more significant than, and not qualitatively distinct from, say faith in the fucking tooth fairy or flying spaghetti monster. It is a fucking joke and 100% unnecessary. If something that's 100% unnecessary is capable of doing some "good", but also capable of doing remarkable "evil", why bother? Furthermore, why pick a god with as much "baggage" as the abrahamic god has? Why not pick something else, some other god? Why not make up your own god to have blind faith in? Why not more than one god?

Quote :

"Why does it matter to atheist if others believe in God?"

As long as those that believe in god kept it 100% to themselves, it wouldn't.

Also, they like to take credit for all the "good" in the world. They're all, "If we weren't here to fight off satan, (or whatever,) the world would become evil." I'd fucking love for all the god-followers to disappear, except for the fact that then they wouldn't be able to see that "good" still reigns without them.

Quote :

"If they were not "suffering" by believing in god, they'd be "suffering" for another reason..... it could be depression or something like that."

You're right. But invariably, monotheistic faith extends past one's personal experience, becoming unsolicited "noise" and even worse, support or opposition to legislation. How someone deals with their own personal problems shouldn't result in bans on science funding. One's freedom to choose how they characterize their own life struggles shouldn't justify the word "god" appearing on our money.

Atheists aren't as much saying, "Change your beliefs!" as much as, "You don't make sense...so keep it to yourselves!!"

[Edited on December 16, 2008 at 10:08 AM. Reason : ]

12/16/2008 10:06:02 AM

Quote :

"It doesn't make sense, and it can't be challenged by logic. It exists outside of logic. Aside from the historical relevance, social/governmental connection, and mere power in number, faith in one particular god or gods is no more significant than, and not qualitatively distinct from, say faith in the fucking tooth fairy or flying spaghetti monster. It is a fucking joke and 100% unnecessary."

your biggest problem is that you seem to think (and, really, this is laughable) that you can apply logic to human emotion or thought...there never has been, is not right now, and likely never will be a person who can form a thought without emotion...it is part of what makes us unique

you are trying to say this ONE aspect of humanity is illogical, while completely ignoring the innumerable other aspects that are equally illogical (but that you will happily indulge in because to criticize them would make you a hypocrite)

believing in something on faith is no more ridiculous than falling in love...and yet, people do it and it's considered okay

i, personally, despise any religion that preaches intolerance...i feel that it's silly to believe that as simple mortals, we have the capacity to understand, even minutely, that which we worship...in that capacity, we have no ability or right to dictate which version of belief is correct (i suppose god and the flying spaghetti monster are equally likely, in theory, though there's a lot less "evidence" supporting the FSM)

atheists who knock religion are bigger assholes than the religious who feel the need to educate others, mostly because atheists, by their own lack of belief MUST understand that there is no inherent harm in others believing in god, and yet the obnoxious ones are personally pissed off at everyone who doesn't have the same lack of faith that they do...it boggles the mind

Quote :

"They're all, "If we weren't here to fight off satan, (or whatever,) the world would become evil.""

you're just so...BITTER

who the hell actually says that kind of thing? i bet i know more christians than YOU do, and none of them crazy the way you portray them

[Edited on December 16, 2008 at 10:16 AM. Reason : .]

12/16/2008 10:14:07 AM

Quote :

"Nothing from mono to atheist."

lol. Blind obedience at its best. How does it feel to be a complete sheep?

Quote :

"you are trying to say this ONE aspect of humanity is illogical, while completely ignoring the innumerable other aspects that are equally illogical (but that you will happily indulge in because to criticize them would make you a hypocrite) believing in something on faith is no more ridiculous than falling in love...and yet, people do it and it's considered okay"

No. What you're describing is a human characterization to biological attraction. It's not "illogical" at all and can be completely explained. Try again.

[Edited on December 16, 2008 at 10:15 AM. Reason : ]

12/16/2008 10:14:36 AM

Quote :

"It's not "illogical" at all and can be completely explained. Try again."

oh, my bad...please direct me to the DEFINITIVE proof that love is completely and 100% determined biologically...please, i'm intrigued

12/16/2008 10:17:44 AM

Quote :

"It exists outside of logic. "

A+. Because God is supernatural, Christianity is illogical (where logic is a natural system).

Quote :

"How someone deals with their own personal problems shouldn't result in bans on science funding. "

Any attempts to unify faith with government will fail if God is not the master of the government, so this is not a surprise to me.

Quote :

"One's freedom to choose how they characterize their own life struggles shouldn't justify the word "god" appearing on our money. "

Honestly, can this bother you so much? Are your rights being impeded on? Wait until inflation drives this world into a permanent sinkhole and fiat money will be burned altogether from the face of the earth.

Quote :

"Aside from the historical relevance, social/governmental connection, and mere power in number, faith in one particular god or gods is no more significant than, and not qualitatively distinct from, say faith in the fucking tooth fairy or flying spaghetti monster. "

The question being raised here is, why Christ? On notion of faith per se: there are six definitions of sin, and one is chaotic faith. I can believe in anything I feel like it if I trick myself mentally. The fact that Christ is the only way to God is essential, however, because of how God sacrificed Christ for us. No other god could love us so much.

Quote :

"As long as they kept it 100% to themselves"

As Christians we believe it is our duty to spread the word.

Quote :

"I'd fucking love for all the god-followers to disappear, except for the fact that then they wouldn't be able to see that "good" still reigns without them."

Again, you're taking one type of Christian (the proverbial hypocrite-biggot-Bible-thumper-holier-than-thou) and assuming that is the norm.

How do you define good? If you accept that there is good, then you accept there is evil. How do you define evil?

[Edited on December 16, 2008 at 10:22 AM. Reason : il]

12/16/2008 10:18:56 AM

To be quick:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_(scientific_views)

But there's plenty out there. You're using your own ignorance as a shield, and it isn't working.

[Edited on December 16, 2008 at 10:19 AM. Reason : ]

12/16/2008 10:19:14 AM

"DEFINITIVE proof that love is completely and 100% determined biologically" is wikipedia?

thanks for the science lesson

i did not say that there was not a biological/neurological/chemical aspect to love...that'd be stupid

i daresay there's an aspect of religious belief that fits in those categories as well...but to pretend that either can be defined COMPLETELY by logic/science is out and out stupidity

[Edited on December 16, 2008 at 10:22 AM. Reason : .]

12/16/2008 10:20:26 AM

And cddweller, please stop arguing with "God existing" as a presupposition.

^

References

1. ^ Developing a Sense of Safety: The Neurobiology of Neonatal Attachment by R. M. Sullivan in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (2003) Volume 1008 pages 122–131.
2. ^ Human sexual behavior by Philip Feldman and Malcolm MacCulloch. Published by John Wiley & Sons. 1980. ISBN:4712767669.
3. ^ "A cross-cultural perspective on romantic love" by W. R. Jankowiak and E. F. Fischer in Ethnology (1992) Volume 31 pages 149–155.
4. ^ "Love: an emergent property of the mammalian autonomic nervous system" by S. W. Porges in Psychoneuroendocrinology (1998) Volume 23 pages 837-861. PMID 9924740.
5. ^ "Evolutionary psychology: the emperor's new paradigm" by D. J. Buller in Trends Cogn. Sci. (2005) Volume 9 pages 277-283.
6. ^ The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature by Geoffrey F. Miller in Psycoloquy (2001) 12,#8.
7. ^ Evolution of human music through sexual selection by G. F. Miller in N. L. Wallin, B. Merker, & S. Brown (Eds.), The origins of music, MIT Press, (2000). pp. 329-360.
8. ^ Sexual selection and mate choice in evolutionary psychology by C. Haufe in Biology and Philosophy doi:10.1007/s10539-007-9071-0
9. ^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16289361
10. ^ "The neurobiology of love" by S. Zeki in FEBS Lett. (2007) Volume 581 pages 2575-2579. PMID 17531984
11. ^ The endocrinology of sexual arousal by J. Bancroft in Journal of Endocrinology (2005) Volume 186 pages 411-427.
12. ^ "Aphrodisiacs past and present: a historical review" by P. Sandroni in Clin. Auton. Res. (2001) Volume 11 pages 303-307
13. ^ Carmichael MS, Humbert R, Dixen J, Palmisano G, Greenleaf W, Davidson JM. (1987) Plasma oxytocin increases in the human sexual response. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 64:27-31 PMID 3782434
14. ^ Reward, Motivation, and Emotion Systems Associated With Early-Stage Intense Romantic Love by Arthur Aron1, Helen Fisher, Debra J. Mashek, Greg Strong, Haifang Li and Lucy L. Brown in Journal of Neurophysiology (2005) Volume 94, pages 327-337.



[Edited on December 16, 2008 at 10:22 AM. Reason : ]

12/16/2008 10:21:46 AM

^ see my edit above:

Quote :

"i did not say that there was not a biological/neurological/chemical aspect to love...that'd be stupid i daresay there's an aspect of religious belief that fits in those categories as well...but to pretend that either can be defined COMPLETELY by logic/science is out and out stupidity"

your "references" (which i'm sure you've read in their entirety) don't PROVE love is 100% scientific...all they do is offer evidence that there are biological/neurological/chemical aspects

you DO know how to read, don't you?

12/16/2008 10:23:23 AM

This thread is just asking for a complete idiotic shitstorm of bad logic and declarations of absolute certainty. And all sorts of other stuff.

Especially since it was made in chit chat.

12/16/2008 10:24:47 AM

Hahah.

"Your scientific theories PROVE nothing!"

Yeah, I guess nothing proves nothing, does it? Why believe anything? Will the sun rise tomorrow? Can you PROVE it will?

Furthermore, can you PROVE the sun isn't a giant creature from the past? If you can't PROVE it with 100% certainty I guess we can believe it is, can't we? Why don't we teach children, when we get to astronomy, that the sun could possibly be a giant creature, because we can't PROVE it with 100% certainty?

12/16/2008 10:25:28 AM

^ when you start making up quotes, that's when you should probably go masturbate or do something else productive, because you have nothing of any value to offer

Quote :

"This thread is just asking for a complete idiotic shitstorm of bad logic and declarations of absolute certainty."

as long as you're not implying that only one side has a monopoly on such, i agree

[Edited on December 16, 2008 at 10:27 AM. Reason : .]

12/16/2008 10:26:13 AM

Quote :

"as long as you're not implying that only one side has a monopoly on such, i agree"

Well, yeah. Obviously.

12/16/2008 10:27:28 AM

Quote :

"How does it feel to be a complete sheep?"

Fuckin A.

Quote :

"Please stop arguing with "God existing" as a presupposition."

No.

Quote :

"This thread is just asking for a complete idiotic shitstorm of bad logic and declarations of absolute certainty. And all sorts of other stuff. Especially since it was made in chit chat."

Actually the thread was originally designed for anyone to shoot out random questions and I (or anyone) would try and answer them. Any arguments back and forth would do well to stay within the SB or the Lounge.

12/16/2008 10:28:09 AM

just about every religious thread on TWW ends up the same way and it's MOSTLY atheists persecuting non-atheists, as if they are truly offended that someone would believe in something they don't

some of you (not all) are just compensating for something...you can say the same about the theists, but at least they've got the balls to admit it

12/16/2008 10:30:47 AM

Look, you fucking idiots.

Yes, you are CORRECT when you say that there are two choices: God exists and God does not exist.

However, just because there are two choices DOES NOT IMPLY that there is a 50% chance of either choice existing. This would mean that the evidence presented would give this impression, and it most certainly does NOT.



Let us say that I tell you I have an invisible friend. There are two possibilities: He exists and he does not exist.

Would you say that there is a 50% chance he exists? Of course not. Why?

Let's look at the evidence:
Has there ever been a scientifically proved recorded incident of someone being invisible? No.
Does the technology exist for someone to be invisible? No.
Can I prove it in any way? No.

Looking at this, would you surely come to the conclusion that the LIKELIHOOD of me having an invisible friend was not a 50% chance. The likelihood of him existing was more around a fraction of a percent, with the evidence against me being very, very close to 100%.

Now, surely if I was going around protesting that I truly believed my invisible friend was with me, you'd recommend that I be committed to the nut house. After all, who seriously believes they have an invisible friend who isn't certifiably insane?

Why, then, if I protest that I have an invisible deity, who can only speak to me in my head, who no one has ever seen, who I can not prove exists in any way, am I given complete legitimacy if I suddenly label it as Christianity?

Quote :

"MOSTLY atheists persecuting non-atheists"

Haha, yes. YOU'RE the persecuted majority, aren't you?

Quote :

"as if they are truly offended that someone would believe in something they don't"

It's not that I'm truly offended that someone believes in something I don't, it's that someone believes in something so baseless with such conviction and ignorant pride. They wear it as a badge of honor. "Hi, I'm delusional, aren't I swell?"

12/16/2008 10:37:10 AM

cddweller, you created this thread because you wanted people to ask you questions. Now you're saying that we can't challenge your faith, and that it is unshakable. Why create the thread in the first place?

12/16/2008 10:40:04 AM

Quote :

"it's that someone believes in something so baseless with such conviction and ignorant pride."

And you're wearing the badge of a douchebag proudly. What's your point here?

Delusional and Asshole aren't the only two options.

12/16/2008 10:40:06 AM

tl;dr, haha

Quote :

"i bet i know more christians than YOU do"

So, all these christians that you know... How do they feel about the word "god" on our money? Many people view that as unnecessary at best and offensive or even in violation of the establishment clause, at worst. So why? Why would all these christians that you know tolerate it? Or are you saying they don't?

Quote :

"atheists persecuting non-atheists"

Whatever... go ahead and get the word "god" off our money, somehow. Then talk.

Quote :

"It's not that I'm truly offended that someone believes in something I don't, it's that someone believes in something so baseless with such conviction and ignorant pride. They wear it as a badge of honor. "Hi, I'm delusional, aren't I swell?"

Well put.

12/16/2008 10:40:46 AM

Quote :

"And you're wearing the badge of a douchebag proudly. What's your point here? Delusional and Asshole aren't the only two options."

What makes me a douchebag? Because I challenge peoples belief system? You don't think religion should get a free pass on reality, do you?

12/16/2008 10:41:02 AM

Quote :

"What makes me a douchebag? Because I challenge peoples belief system?"

There's this fundamental concept of "being a dick" that's rather hard to describe. But you're failing to grasp how to avoid it.

Quote :

"You don't think religion should get a free pass on reality, do you?"

What the fuck does this sentence even mean? Are you trying to say that, for whatever reason, delusional people are not entitled to the right to be delusional? Or are you referring to some grander crusade in which atheists are virtuously trying to stop the delusion of god from conquering the world?

12/16/2008 10:44:57 AM

Quote :

"They wear it as a badge of honor"

AND THEY PUT IT ON OUR FUCKING MONEY.
I LOVE MY COUNTRY, BUT I DO NOT "TRUST IN GOD".

12/16/2008 10:45:09 AM

Quote :

"Hi, I'm delusional, aren't I swell?"

the funny thing here is that YOU see that statement as a truth, while in reality it is a subjective statement...by YOUR viewpoint, it's delusional...from another viewpoint, it's divinity instead of delusion (which i'm not saying is right)...from another, it's simply a choice that an individual decided to make that other individuals get pissy over

you seem to be big on logic and proof, and yet you spew these subjective statements like you're right and everyone else is wrong...is it arrogance or stupidity on your part?

Quote :

"What makes me a douchebag? Because I challenge peoples belief system? You don't think religion should get a free pass on reality, do you?"

no, what makes you a douchebag is the assumption that you are correct and others are wrong regarding something that you obviously can't know any more than anyone else...what makes you a douchebag is that you pretend indignation over something that, by your supposed lack of belief in the first place, shouldn't affect you at all

do you cry yourself to sleep over the word "god" on our money? why not argue that since jefferson owned slaves that he shouldn't be on our money as well? why aren't black people offended or, if they are, why is your dramatic appeal more important than theirs?

you've done nothing but demonstrate how certain atheists are less tolerant than certain religious members...kudos, kid



[Edited on December 16, 2008 at 10:50 AM. Reason : grammar]

12/16/2008 10:49:11 AM

Quote :

"AND THEY PUT IT ON OUR FUCKING MONEY. I LOVE MY COUNTRY, BUT I DO NOT "TRUST IN GOD""

Oh no. How will you ever buy things again?

Seriously, though... it shouldn't have been put there in the first place, but the fact is that it's been there for quite some time now and getting extremely butthurt against such a trivial issue is little more than a pathetic sort of internet trolling brought into reality. It's not hurting anyone, so just wait until the day when the majority agrees with you... or at least doesn't give enough of a shit to bother.

[Edited on December 16, 2008 at 10:59 AM. Reason : v fine. "butthurt" is probably more applicable than "crusade" anyway.]

12/16/2008 10:50:03 AM

^

Quote :

"crusade"

:carlface:

But yeah, it shouldn't have been put there....
...and we might have to

Quote :

"Wait until inflation drives this world into a permanent sinkhole and fiat money will be burned altogether from the face of the earth"

12/16/2008 10:55:48 AM

I have a question:

12/16/2008 10:58:18 AM

eating at wendy's

12/16/2008 10:58:55 AM

Wall of text and quotes incoming:

Quote :

"Are you trying to say that, for whatever reason, delusional people are not entitled to the right to be delusional? Or are you referring to some grander crusade in which atheists are virtuously trying to stop the delusion of god from conquering the world?"

Delusional people are free to be delusional. But why should their beliefs be respected any more than the raving antics of a lunatic? Why, once it is labeled as "religion," is it given a free pass?

Quote :

"the funny thing here is that YOU see that statement as a truth, while in reality it is a subjective statement...by YOUR viewpoint, it's delusional...from another viewpoint, it's divinity instead of delusion (which i'm not saying is right)...from another, it's simply a choice that an individual decided to make that other individuals get pissy over"

If a man believes he is the reincarnation of Jesus Christ, would you say he is delusional? Of course. And I'm guessing that you would disagree with his assertion. Would you say that it's only "your opinion" that he isn't the reincarnation of Jesus Christ?

Quote :

"no, what makes you a douchebag is the assumption that you are correct and others are wrong regarding something that you obviously can't know any more than anyone else...what makes you a douchebag is that you pretend indignation over something that, by your supposed lack of belief in the first place, shouldn't affect you at all"

Again you're missing the point here. We obviously cannot know for a certainty that there is a God. This is true. However, what we can know is the likelihood of such an occurrence. I will admit that I cannot be certain that God does not exist. I do know, however, that it is incredibly unlikely. I base my knowledge on the evidence at hand.

I know this the same way that I know that it is incredibly unlikely that I will spontaneously combust in the next ten seconds. Am I certain I will not? Of course not. There's always the slight possibility that I will, even though there's absolutely no evidence that I will combust. I won't discount that.

And how, exactly, does it not affect me at all? Abortion? Marriage? Stem cell research? Terrorism? All of these are deeply influenced by religion.

Quote :

"Seriously, though... it shouldn't have been put there in the first place, but the fact is that it's been there for quite some time now and getting extremely butthurt against such a trivial issue is little more than a pathetic sort of internet trolling brought into reality. It's not hurting anyone, so just wait until the day when the majority agrees with you... or at least doesn't give enough of a shit to bother."

Because it gives people the false belief that this country is a "Christian" nation, which it most certainly is not.

[Edited on December 16, 2008 at 11:16 AM. Reason : ]

12/16/2008 11:14:14 AM

Quote :

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

way to take Einstein way out of context

sorry, pal, he was an ATHEIST

12/16/2008 11:24:48 AM

Quote :

"If a man believes he is the reincarnation of Jesus Christ, would you say he is delusional? Of course. And I'm guessing that you would disagree with his assertion. Would you say that it's only "your opinion" that he isn't the reincarnation of Jesus Christ?"

it's true that i would probably agree that he not jesus christ...but i take issue with your statement in that you applied your silliness to the religion as a whole, and now you're changing it up to fit more appropriately what you intended to say (or what you see as a better example...either way, you made a gross generalization and are now only applying it to a specific scenario)

you can't have it both ways...either you feel that those who subscribe to a religion are "delusional" or you don't...sure, you can say that some are (and i would agree), but to then take those people and use them as the sole "proof" that those who believe in a religion are delusional is intentionally ignorant and specifically asinine

Quote :

"Again you're missing the point here. We obviously cannot know for a certainty that there is a God. This is true. However, what we can know is the likelihood of such an occurrence. I will admit that I cannot be certain that God does not exist. I do know, however, that it is incredibly unlikely. I base my knowledge on the evidence at hand."

no, actually, you CANNOT know the likelihood of such an occurrence...it is absolutely impossible for you to assign a scientific and logical value to something like religion...and i realize that that is exactly your point...but you keep doing it, implying that because you cannot assign a value to it, then it must obviously be stupid and those who support it must be delusional...i really don't see how you keep missing the point that it is the nature of religion to be unknowable in certain ways...how are religious beliefs any different than believing the earth was round when everyone thought it was flat? sure, hindsight and history tell us that it wasn't a silly belief at all because it's obviously true...but what you're saying is that until you know something to be true, until it can be proven, those who support the idea MUST be delusional...do you really not see how utterly retarded that viewpoint is? not to mention completely judgmental and intolerant? and you claim it's the religions that are affecting YOU?

Quote :

"Because it gives people the false belief that this country is a "Christian" nation, which it most certainly is not."

perhaps not NOW, but it most certainly was when it was created...according to the CIA world factbook, more than 78% of this country CLAIMS to be christian...so what would you call it, if not a christian nation?

Quote :

"way to take Einstein way out of context sorry, pal, he was an ATHEIST"

do me a favor and look up baruch spinoza, would you?

[Edited on December 16, 2008 at 11:38 AM. Reason : damnation]

12/16/2008 11:27:56 AM

A secular nation.

It is a nation made up of a lot of Christian people, but the nation itself has no associated religion.

12/16/2008 11:31:40 AM

^ that's a good point...i didn't mean to imply that the nation, as a governmental body, subscribes to christianity...only that since the VAST majority of the population claims christianity, that the words are representing the VAST majority of the people

i do understand the argument and, in theory, agree with it...but who cares? it's hardly worth the extra cost to the taxpayer to make a bunch of whiny atheists (the VAST minority, even among atheists as a whole) stop bitching...which, i think, is a point you (generally) made earlier

[Edited on December 16, 2008 at 11:35 AM. Reason : .]

12/16/2008 11:34:25 AM

Man, Willy Nilly, I thought you were cool, a real libertarian and all. Shitting on people's beliefs doesn't strike me as that though.

12/16/2008 11:38:26 AM

Quote :

"do me a favor and look up baruch spinoza, would you?"

oh shit, you're right

Spinoza was a 17th century philosopher that believed in God... this defeats my claims about Einstein, a modern scientist, being an atheist

17th century!
isn't that thinking a little PROGRESSIVE for a contemporary Christian?


^ libertarians are permissive to the extent that people's choices do not limit the freedoms of others... religion has consistently failed to leave people the fuck alone and let them choose

[Edited on December 16, 2008 at 11:42 AM. Reason : do me a favor and look up the Spanish Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials, Galileo and Voltaire]

12/16/2008 11:39:33 AM

Quote :

"it's hardly worth the extra cost to the taxpayer to make a bunch of whiny atheists (the VAST minority, even among atheists as a whole) stop bitching...which, i think, is a point you (generally) made earlier"

I actually wasn't referring to the cost to the taxpayer all that much (which would be minimal, assuming current money with the "god" stuff on it would continue to be valid). I was more or less referring to the massive backlash from pretty much every mainstream christian in the nation. That's a lot of distraction, idiocy, and media dick-sucking over such a trivial concern. The public is already stupid and uninformed enough, they don't need another non-issue getting in the way of what little they are currently being fed.

[Edited on December 16, 2008 at 11:42 AM. Reason : .]

12/16/2008 11:41:48 AM

^^ sounds like a die-hard atheist to me, too:

Quote :

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

- Albert Einstein, upon being asked if he believed in God by Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New York, April 24, 1921, published in the New York Times, April 25, 1929

^ agreed

[Edited on December 16, 2008 at 11:43 AM. Reason : arrows]

12/16/2008 11:42:07 AM

Placeholder post to respond to all of Quagmire's bullshit when I take my lunch break.

12/16/2008 11:44:40 AM