Quote :

"My high school was public, but it wasn't establishment clause stuff. You're allowed to be a religious person on campus, and you're allowed to hold meetings of like-minded religious people about religious topics."

If the school is not letting people put up religious advertisements (what do you really mean by that? In the yearbook? Newspaper? Fliers on the wall?) I still think it's them not wanting to deal with a lawsuit.

The reasons you're allowed to do the other things you mention is because of:

Good News Club v. Milford Central School
Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District
Chandler v. Siegelman

3/11/2009 10:40:34 PM

agentlion makes my point for me, as well as I ever could. The implication that his side is the sole bearer of the obvious truth is not the sort of language that is conducive to rational discourse. And his assertion that the discussion has so far been neutral on his side is wholly unsubstantiated, not in the sense that it can't be proven, but insofar as he hasn't made the slightest effort to do so.

Quote :

"If the school is not letting people put up religious advertisements (what do you really mean by that? In the yearbook? Newspaper? Fliers on the wall?) I still think it's them not wanting to deal with a lawsuit. "

The school never complained about any of it. It was anti-religious* students tearing fliers off the wall and protesting everything else. I know, because I was witness to more than one incident of this sort of thing.

Whatever the religious elements were attempting to do may or may not have been constitutionally acceptable. I won't claim to know. I can say that, to my knowledge, they all involved clubs which were permitted but not necessarily endorsed by the school system and administration -- not all that uncommon a situation, since we also had a Gay-Straight Alliance Club (which flourished and had a far stronger membership), a Young Democrats Club (whose members routinely tore down posters for the Teenage Republicans, I should add), and various other organizations that the school should permit but has no business endorsing officially. The administration wasn't creating the hostile environment, the students were.

But then, maybe the students were really worried about their school being sued for violating the judgment in Chandler v. Siegelman.

*I'm attempting to make a distinction here between people who are merely atheist and those who seek to attack religion. There is a difference.

[Edited on March 12, 2009 at 2:42 AM. Reason : ]

3/12/2009 2:39:39 AM

Wait, so you were comparing individual students to companies? Now I don't really have a clue what you were trying to say.

3/12/2009 3:06:43 AM

Atheist billboards are not likely to survive in certain parts of the country, because the religious majority in those areas is likely to protest vocally and effectively.

The religious equivalent at my high school was not likely to survive, either, because the atheist majority in that area protested vocally and effectively.

Of course, in that case it wasn't up to a company to remove the adverts because of the protests or boycotts, but then again agentlion didn't mention people vandalizing or forcibly removing billboards, either (though these things may happen).

I'm not sure why you're so hung up on my high school. It isn't exactly central to the discussion. It was merely an example to demonstrate that atheists aren't a pitiable oppressed minority everywhere.

[Edited on March 12, 2009 at 3:24 AM. Reason : Anyway, sleep now, get back to you later.]

3/12/2009 3:21:01 AM

Quote :

"agentlion makes my point for me, as well as I ever could. The implication that his side is the sole bearer of the obvious truth is not the sort of language that is conducive to rational discourse."

what's the point of arguing your side if you don't believe you have the truth behind it?
Are you not committed enough in your Christian faith to be able to make the claim that "I'm right, there is a God, Jesus was God on earth, anyone who disagrees with these statements are clearly, demonstrably, definitively in the wrong"?

3/12/2009 8:59:26 AM

This wouldn't work with any other subject debated on this board. Saying, "Anybody who opposes the stimulus bill is clearly, demonstrably, definitively in the wrong," and just leaving it at that.

And I'm committed in my Christian faith, but I'm not going to make claims that are patently false. It is not clearly and demonstrably true that there is a God and Jesus. I can't demonstrate that. It's not clear. Just like you can't demonstrate that there isn't a God. That's the whole point, right? That the issue is filled with things that can't be proven or disproven?

3/12/2009 11:38:07 AM

According to the common definition of Atheist among atheists (but not usually among the religious), you don't need to say "I know god does not exist" to be an atheist. If you assume there's no god, live your life based on that opinion, and no belief in a god affects your life in any way, I'd still call you an atheist.

That's me. I know that I can't demonstrate or prove there's no god - it's unscientific to pretend you know something 100% doesn't exist. That's considered a 6 on the 'Dawkins scale," which is what Dawkins considers himself, too.

A 7 (I know god does not exist) is, to me, as unreasonable as a 1 (I know for a fact god does exist)

3/12/2009 1:26:50 PM

Quote :

"And I'm committed in my Christian faith, but I'm not going to make claims that are patently false. It is not clearly and demonstrably true that there is a God and Jesus. I can't demonstrate that. It's not clear. Just like you can't demonstrate that there isn't a God. That's the whole point, right? That the issue is filled with things that can't be proven or disproven?"

There are many things that we can't disprove. Like all of the other gods in every other religion that has ever existed, or leprechauns, or [some] salisburyboyisms. I'm surprised that you would think unprovability is a reason to believe anything.

Atheists don't have to make any unjustified claims.

3/12/2009 1:36:28 PM

This is really why atheists often find Christians' beliefs silly (and conversely why Christians get so pissed): from our perspective there is no difference in your belief and belief in Santa Claus, Big Foot, the Tooth Fairy, the Boogeyman, unicorns, leprechauns, etc.

The mere fact that it is not falsifiable means to me that I shouldn't waste any time worrying about it, much less worship it and not sleep in on Sunday. (not that I've slept in on Sunday in 10 months, which is coincidentally how old my daughter is)

3/12/2009 3:25:09 PM

I'm sorry, let me interrupt just for a second: You procreated? Shit. Congrats.

We now return you... etc etc

3/12/2009 4:08:43 PM

Yeah, I just added that for you man. I figured you hadn't heard. The woman I was dating in college is now my wife of 5 years, with a baby in arms. A sick, not sleeping baby at the moment.

Back on topic!

3/12/2009 4:18:49 PM

^^^ show me historical evidence of leprechauns and santa claus resurrecting and i'll laugh at christians too.

3/12/2009 5:10:56 PM

A lot of my coworkers are seminary students from SEBTS in Wake Forest. I've made a point not to really get into religious discussions with them because I don't see anything to be gained from it. Some of them joke amongst themselves about non-Baptists going to hell. They are aware that people find their beliefs and the way they voice them offensive. They don't care. One of them said one time "the truth is offensive."

Religion is a parasitic meme that survives by siphoning resources away from those that produce to those that promulgate religion, e.g. priests and evangelists. Religions are in many ways like a really elaborate chain letter. Both present themselves and demand a certain amount of resources, time, work etc... The similarities between religion and chain letters are no coincidence. Both are self-replicating ideas that spread and change, acquiring similar characteristics in proportion as those characteristics enable the idea to better reproduce itself. Religion and chain letters, both therefore, promise rewards for doing as the idea directs, both promise punishments for doing otherwise. Both religion and chain letters are selected for their ability to parasitize minds not for their truth value.

A parasite, whether ideological or biological, requires a healthy host. That's why you often times find some sensical moral framework within religion. Despite all the wacky stuff, like Puritanism in Christianity, there's actually a lot of commonality between the moral frameworks of different religions. Most religions proscribe theft, rape, murder etc... Some people try to use this as a justification for religion, "religion promotes virtue!" etc... This is really no excuse, it's possible to hash out a good moral foundation without having to tolerate parasitism.

There are two ways to do this, science and philosophy. I view science as being akin to religion in some, very limited, respects. Science does produce ideas selected for truth value. Scientific theories are generally either probably true or approximately true. Still, the validity of science itself, the scientific method, is rarely questioned, examined, or explicitly defended, but rather seems to be taken for granted. While science is enormously helpful and powerful, I think it bears closer examination and realistic understanding of its limitations, since the truth it produces comes in the form "the sun has risen each day throughout recorded history, therefore the sun will rise to tomorrow." This is probably true, to a very high degree of probability. It's even more probably true when we take into account the fact that it's very probably true that the reason we perceive the sun to rise is that the Earth rotates on its axis and we've never observed a contradiction to the law of conservation of angular momentum. Still it must be remembered that this is an empirical and inductive conclusion. We have not, for all the certainty we can muster, established absolutely that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Philosophy can yield absolute truth. But its a lot more trouble and slower going. The subset of all truth that is absolute and provable will always be much smaller than the merely scientific truths. What's an example of absolute truth? Well, its absolutely true that it is possible to know at least some things for certain. Some people deny this, they say that it's impossible to know anything for certain. They are, however, engaged in a contradiction. What they are asserting, among other things, is that they can have no basis for knowing their own assertion to be valid.

3/12/2009 5:16:55 PM

Quote :

"I'm surprised that you would think unprovability is a reason to believe anything. "

Quote :

"The mere fact that it is not falsifiable means to me that I shouldn't waste any time worrying about it, much less worship it and not sleep in on Sunday."

You've both clearly missed my point. I absolutely never said and do not believe that unprovability is a reason to believe in or worship God. I said that, because of the issue of falsifiability, neither atheists nor theists can make the statement "I'm right, anyone who disagrees with my position is clearly, demonstrably, definitively wrong."

Quote :

"Religion is a parasitic meme that survives by siphoning resources away from those that produce to those that promulgate religion, e.g. priests and evangelists."

The same could be said about artists, poets, and actors. They don't produce anything tangibly useful. They produce emotional responses in people. Just like religious figures. You don't have to like Picasso, and you don't have to believe in Lutheranism.

3/12/2009 6:13:17 PM

Quote :

"show me historical evidence of leprechauns and santa claus resurrecting and i'll laugh at christians too"

show me "historical evidence" of Jesus' resurrection, and I'll laugh at atheists, too

3/12/2009 6:26:45 PM

Quote :

"That the issue is filled with things that can't be proven or disproven?"

I was going to let the point slide, but i can't stop myself, i guess....

Yes, it is true that the existence of God cannot be disproven, just as the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or a teapot orbiting the sun near Mars.

However.... one has to wonder why the existence of God cannot be proven, by, i don't know..... God making himself known to us. And not "through the beauty of nature" or "because he talks to me" or anything like that, including the existence of a 2000 year-old colleciton of misinterpreted and self-contradictory scrolls by unknown authors. God can settle this pretty much once and for all by making himself evident and visible to all humans on the earth, but then again, that would take away the whole point of faith.

3/12/2009 7:02:40 PM

^^ i was waiting for that.

let me google that for you.

3/12/2009 7:16:41 PM

well, you'll be a while.

but please do come back when you think you have something that you can pass off as "evidence"

i need some amusement.

3/12/2009 7:21:30 PM

Quote :

"The same could be said about artists, poets, and actors. They don't produce anything tangibly useful. They produce emotional responses in people. Just like religious figures."

Except that artists, poets and actors don't necessarily do it by spreading lies and destructive ideas. Nor do they necessarily do it by engaging in moral terrorism towards youngsters.

Quote :

"You don't have to like Picasso, and you don't have to believe in Lutheranism."

Historically speaking, it hasn't generally been the case that you "don't have to believe in" X religion.

[Edited on March 12, 2009 at 7:32 PM. Reason : ']

3/12/2009 7:29:29 PM

^^i wasn't saying i was really going to google that for you. i was just being a jerk and didn't have the link for that letmegooglethatforyou.com thingy.

again, can it be proven? probably not. is there evidence for it? of course.

people have been citing evidence and defending christianity for two millenia. you probably saw the da vinci code though and thought you were smart.

3/12/2009 7:43:07 PM

Quote :

"again, can it be proven? probably not. is there evidence for it? of course. people have been citing evidence and defending christianity for two millenia. you probably saw the da vinci code though and thought you were smart."

The Soap Box never lets me down for a good laugh.

3/12/2009 8:05:56 PM

Quote :

"However.... one has to wonder why the existence of God cannot be proven, by, i don't know..... God making himself known to us."

Sure. Wonder away. It's one of those things that even religious people get to wonder about, because it isn't really explained anywhere why God doesn't just show up and put the whole thing to rest. Of course, it's the same thing with any human motivation. We don't know why God doesn't show Himself to the world. I don't know why you're arguing with me the way you are. You don't know why I'm drunk every other time I post. We can guess.

It's worth pointing out that God couldn't just settle the matter by making himself visible and evident. A lot of people would argue that it was a trick, either on the part of religious people with really good special effects or of the devil.

Quote :

"Except that artists, poets and actors don't necessarily do it by spreading lies and destructive ideas. Nor do they necessarily do it by engaging in moral terrorism towards youngsters. "

Please. All actors do is lie, we just call it acting because they're doing it for our amusement. Nor do religions necessary terrorize anybody, youngsters included. It is possible to teach religion without fire and brimstone.

Quote :

"Historically speaking, it hasn't generally been the case that you "don't have to believe in" X religion."

Historically speaking, pretty much everything has long been more horrible than it is now. For almost four hundred years white people in America had black slaves. We've only given it up in the past 150. Historically speaking, white people are genocidal slave drivers. Doesn't mean white people can't change, or must be destroyed for the good of society.

3/12/2009 8:13:04 PM

^^please tell us more

3/12/2009 8:24:32 PM

Quote :

"people have been citing evidence and defending christianity for two millenia. you probably saw the da vinci code though and thought you were smart"

People have been citing the same lame 3rd, 4th, or more hand evidence. No one has ever even produced an actual eye-witness account, much less actual evidence. No one. Ever. I'm sorry that you've been lied to. Surely you know that the gospels, aside from conflicting each other and even themselves, provide falsifiable information that has been falsified, and none of them were written even close to when they supposedly take place.

I know it's wikipedia, but you can cross reference:

Estimates for the dates when the canonical Gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the Gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Scholars variously assess the consensus or majority view as follows:

* Mark: c. 68–73,[11] c 65-70[2]
* Matthew: c. 70–100.[11] c 80-85.[2] Some conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date, particularly those that do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
* Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[11], c 80-85[2]
* John: c 90-100,[2] c. 90–110,[12] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.


[Edited on March 12, 2009 at 9:41 PM. Reason : .]

3/12/2009 9:37:27 PM

wait what?

nearly all those dates you cite give the disciples time to record their first hand accounts of what went down. yea this was years after christ's resurrection but it was written by people who saw the risen Christ and wrote it down later before they died.

the gospels are full of eye-witness accounts and there's some extra-biblical evidence as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_of_Jesus#Non-Christian

oh yeah. and apparently lots of these eye-witnesses saw something convincing enough to make them all martyrs.

[Edited on March 12, 2009 at 10:43 PM. Reason : ]

3/12/2009 10:35:13 PM

Horay for citing Wikipedia:

Quote :

"The authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum has been disputed since the 17th century, and by the mid 18th century the consensus view was that it was at a minimum embellishment by early Christian scribes, if not a forgery."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Look. IF there was actual PROOF of the Christian God and Jesus, then there would be no argument. Or do you think that non-believers just don't try?

And:

Quote :

"It's worth pointing out that God couldn't just settle the matter by making himself visible and evident. A lot of people would argue that it was a trick, either on the part of religious people with really good special effects or of the devil."

It's interesting that you point out something that God is not capable of.

3/13/2009 8:19:10 AM

no, i think nonbelievers try very hard. they've been trying to dismantle christianity for two thousand years yet millions of people still believe it. so keep trying please.

i admit it appears I was pwnt on the Josephus thing, though. My investigation into the validity of the Scriptures will begin!

oh, and of course there's no proof. that is why it is a matter of faith. just like evolution and any other scientific theory requires some bit of faith to believe. but there is evidence for both. as previously mentioned in this thread, there is little PROOF for many things we asssume to be true. There is evidence for it though.

As far as God not being capable of just settling the matter, well that gets into a different can of worms altogether, but let's just say oh he could, but that would go against his entire idea of giving us free will to acknowledge/worship him in the first place.

and most Christians believe he will settle the matter. but it will be too late for a lot of people by then.

[Edited on March 13, 2009 at 9:06 AM. Reason : ]

3/13/2009 9:03:47 AM

Quote :

"My investigation into the validity of the Scriptures will begin!"

you can start with why the remaining 4 gospels have irreconcilable differences. Try this 30 minute interview if you want to start easy - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101389895

Quote :

"oh, and of course there's no proof. that is why it is a matter of faith. just like evolution and any other scientific theory requires some bit of faith to believe."

oh look, and evangelical who doesn't understand evolution or science. big surprise

3/13/2009 9:26:41 AM

lol@atheists trying to dismantle Christianity. I have never had an atheist knock on my door and try to convert me. No where in our philosophy are we required to make others think the way that we do. There is no witnessing in atheism.

We respond to goofy shit like "Evolution requires faith" because we can see through the bullshit. This rhetoric is just a thinly veiled attempt to equate evolutionary science to creationism which is both utterly stupid and offensive.

3/13/2009 9:35:17 AM

^^thanks. i will give that a listen after work.

i'm not saying it's a huge leap of faith to believe in evolution. i know there's a ton of scientific evidence for it. i'm saying it's starts with preconditions we assume to be right, thus shaping our paradigms from the beginning, which determines how we even interpret evidence etc. trusting science itself requires faith, as faithless as you all claim to be.

and disco_stu i shouldn't really acknowledge your post b/c it is just a thinly veiled attempt at a strawman analogy. but what the heck... i'm not attempting to equate evolutionary science to creationism. i perhaps could even cede you the point that there is more scientific evidence for evolution than creationism. but trusting science itself requires faith, as faithless as you all claim to be.

and wait...wat? never had an atheist try to convert you? there's lots of atheists trying to convert (convince others that they are right) in this very thread. and yeah, people like dawkins have never tried to dismantle christianity.

[Edited on March 13, 2009 at 9:50 AM. Reason : ]

3/13/2009 9:48:54 AM

Quote :

" have never had an atheist knock on my door and try to convert me."

well, it happens, but it doesn't make Mormons very happy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7wOz5a6yns

3/13/2009 9:51:13 AM

Dawkins is an asshole. My point is that we're not the ones with an agenda built-in to our philosophy. There are no passages in my holy book that preachers can use to convince me it's my duty to convert the world to my philosophy.

Our (atheists) interest in "converting" Christians is purely a defensive attempt to keep your bullshit out of our lives (more specifically our schools and laws).

3/13/2009 10:25:53 AM

Quote :

"Dawkins is an asshole. My point is that we're not the ones with an agenda built-in to our philosophy"

I agree. Personally, as a confirmed agnostic, i've got to say that raging atheists annoy me as much as fundamentalist christians, perhaps even moreso.

and okay, ohmy, i regret to admit that i did read Dan Brown's The DaVinci Code. it was an almost insufferable book: insipid, pedantic, and full of scholastic errors. I bought it at an airport to read on a plane, and couldnt stop reading it because it was so absurd. The literary equivalent of a multi-car pileup on a freeway.

i mean, for God's sake the author (Brown) used Baigent and Leigh's Holy Blood, Holy Grail as his primary source, even citing it a an historical source, when in fact that entire book was almost entirely based upon one forged document, and as "investigative reporters", Baigent and Leigh were shown to be incompetent naives, at best. Their later work The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception derived all of their "conspiracy evidence" from the works of one fringe DSS scholar, a Robert Eisenman of Cal State Long Beach, who has himself been thoroughly discredited as a media-whoring crank.

so look, kid, if you want to debate current biblical scholarship with me, let's go. But don't even try to tell me you've got any evidence for Jesus' resurrection. There's barely evidence for his existence, but I'll go ahead and grant you that just so we can all have a common starting point.

3/13/2009 11:42:26 AM

^ The DaVinci Code was a fast, action-packed, easy to read, enjoyable book.

I'm not sure that Dan Brown ever intended it to be in any way historically accurate or provide a legitimate alternative to the modern Jesus story. I suspect that any comments he made to that end were simply for marketing purposes. If he did actually believe any of the stuff he wrote, then clearly he is misguided. The public and church reaction to the book, though, by giving it credence any further than what it was - a work of pseudo-historical fiction - was laughable.

It was almost as bad as The Vatican's reaction to the Harry Potter series, which they reject and repudiate, of course, because they think it teaches children witchcraft and wizardry. The absurdity in that, obviously, is that it shows The Vatican, and therefore the Catholic Church, actually believe in witchcraft and wizardry.

3/13/2009 12:02:00 PM

within the book (DaVinci code) itself, Brown defended the basic premise of the story and actually cited Baigent and Leigh's bestseller Holy Blood and the Holy Grail as the historical and scholastic evidence to support the plausibility of his story.

its an intellectually dishonest bit of self-promotion, to write a fiction piece yet claim (falsely) that it is based on actual historical and scholarly evidence.

but its not surprising, since Brown's "source" (Baigent and Leigh) promote themselves as the Bob Woodward of biblical scholarship, when in fact they are widely known for intellectual dishonesty, taking as their own sources forged documents and scholars discredited as book-sellign conspiracy theorists. In their own words: "'only by such synthesis can one discern the underlying continuity, the unified and coherent fabric, which lies at the core of any historical problem.'' To do so, one must realize that ''it is not sufficient to confine oneself exclusively to facts.''

BUT HEY.... don't just take my word for it. read any credible book review. you can start with the NYT:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B07E0DD103AF931A15751C0A9629C8B63





[Edited on March 13, 2009 at 12:25 PM. Reason : ]

3/13/2009 12:14:42 PM

Quote :

"within the book (DaVinci code) itself, it defended the basic premise of the story and cited Baigent and Leigh's bestseller Holy Blood and the Holy Grail as the historical and scholastic evidence to support the plausibility of the story."

oh come on - that's like saying the Twilight books reference Dracula to prop up the theory that vampires exist.

If you're reading a book of fiction, which is what The DaVinci Code is (try to find it in a bookstore - it's not in the Religion or Non-Fiction sections), then you have to accept anything inside it as fiction!

3/13/2009 12:30:22 PM

good lord, what an incomprehensibly terrible analogy. surely you don't think Bram Stoker's Dracula ever purported to be a work of historical scholarship, or that anyone in the past 100 years thought that it was?

i'm not making this up. The DaVinci Code has been roundly criticised from all quarters -- including secular biblical scholars -- that Brown was attempting to have his cake and eat it too. here we have an admittedly fictional work, yet one that was internally and externally attempting to legitimize the story by citing "scholastic research" supporting the incredible claims as having an historical basis in truth

when, in fact, this "scholastic research" was long since dismissed as fraudulet, because it had used a single forged document as the primary "evidence" for their own outrageous theories.

The DaVinci Code a scam and a con. and if you think it was only viewed as entertainment by the general public, then you must be ignorant of what's happening in popular literature: There's an entire new industry created around a "DaVinci Cult", with a plethora of self-described "scholarly" and "nonfiction" attempts to expand on the premises set forth by The DaVinci Code -- the same exact premises set forth 20 years previously by Baigent and Leigh's Holy Blood, Holy Grail which was put forth as actual historical scholarship, and thoroughly debunked as nonsense.

look, i'm done arguing this silliness with you. The DaVinci Code is a joke, and Dan Brown is a con artist. go look it up, it's only been the subject of a million articles. The Catholic Church was right to expose it for the fraudulent crap that it is, because most people are too gullible to actually investigate the "source" it claims to draw upon.






[Edited on March 13, 2009 at 12:54 PM. Reason : ]

3/13/2009 12:47:32 PM

Quote :

"It's interesting that you point out something that God is not capable of."

Oh no, not what I meant at all. Clearly God as Christians understand Him would be capable of making everybody Christian. Simply showing Himself would not be adequate, though.

3/13/2009 12:48:26 PM

Quote :

"Dawkins is an asshole"

I'm sorry, but you can't simply just call someone with his intellectual clout an asshole without any justification. Show me an example of his assholeness. Everyone has times when they do something mean, so you can't just use that, or everyone would be an asshole... and maybe everyone is... but in my experience, from reading several of his very stimulating and interesting books and watching him in interviews and whatnot, I've never seen anything I'd classify as asshole.

If you think he's an asshole because he questions religion with some snark and persistence, well, I don't know how that's fair.

3/13/2009 2:32:32 PM

Let's start with him being British. That in itself qualifies him.

Maybe asshole was too harsh. He is definitely on the offensive as far as denouncing faith which is counter to my philosophy of "live and let live until you knock on my door or try to teach my children bullshit".

3/13/2009 2:44:49 PM

Quote :

""live and let live until you knock on my door or try to teach my children bullshit""

yeah, but Dawkins' (and Hitchens and Harris and Meyers and others) point is that as long as religious people are in political power and can create laws, influence policy, dictate curriculums, etc, then they are "knocking on your door" and spreading their bullshit around to everyone

3/13/2009 2:48:34 PM

Quote :

"you can't simply just call someone with his intellectual clout an asshole without any justification."

Intellect has nothing to do with being an asshole or not.

3/14/2009 12:04:38 PM

Quote :

"Dawkins is an asshole"

Naw, he's just "opinionated." Now Hitchens, there's a genuine asshole...

3/14/2009 12:15:12 PM

Who cares if he is an asshole or not? That doesn't have any bering on the merit of his arguments. I've actually met him briefly, and he was rather polite and well mannered, course he could have been putting on a show. Just because he doesn't take shit and doesn't compromise on his beliefs doesn't make him an ass.

3/14/2009 4:25:01 PM