Last night at the CNN/YouTube debate, a questioner asked the candidates — “who would call yourselves Christian conservatives” — to answer what would Jesus do about the death penalty. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee jokingly responded, “Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office. That’s what Jesus would do.”
It was fitting that Huckabee be asked what Jesus thinks because, in the past, the former Baptist minister has asserted an ability to talk directly to God.
At a Republican Governors Association Dinner in 2004, Huckabee took the stage and began to deliver remarks when his cell phone rang. He took the phone out of his pocket and proceeded to have a conversation with God about President Bush’s reelection:
HUCKABEE: Hello? I’m sorry. I’m right in the middle of an event. It’s who? It’s God? On the phone for me? How did he get my number? Oh, God has everybody’s number. OK? Yes, I’ll hold.
Huckabee then engaged in a 3-minute back-and-forth exchange with God, in which Huckabee asserted that God was with the Republicans and President Bush:
We’re behind [Bush], yes, sir, we sure are. Yes, sir, we know you don’t take sides in the election. But, if you did, we kind of think you’d hang in there with us, Lord, we really do.
Huckabee then ended his conversation and walked off the stage to roaring applause. ThinkProgress has obtained the video from this 2004 GOP fundraiser. Watch it:
As Matt Taibbi wrote in Rolling Stone, Huckabee’s religious zealotry has potentially serious consequences:
This God stuff isn’t just talk with Huck. One of his first acts as governor was to block Medicaid from funding an abortion for a mentally retarded teen-ager who had been raped by her stepfather — an act in direct violation of federal law, which requires states to pay for abortions in cases of rape. “The state didn’t fund a single such abortion while Huckabee was governor,” says Dr. William Harrison of the Fayetteville Women’s Clinic. “Zero.”
As president, Huck would support a constitutional amendment banning abortion and would give science a back seat to religion. “Science changes with every generation and with new discoveries, and God doesn’t,” he says. “So I’ll stick with God if the two are in conflict.” Huckabee’s well-documented disdain for science was reflected in the performance of the Arkansas school system when he was governor; one independent survey gave the state an F for its science standards in schools, a grade that among other things reflected Huckabee’s hostility toward the teaching of evolution.
Well before Rudy was taking calls from his wife, Huckabee was answering direct dials from God.
Transcript:
GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE (R-AK): We are so very glad that all of you could join us here tonight as we get under way to hear the president…
(PHONE RINGING)
HUCKABEE: Oh, my gosh. Excuse me.
(LAUGHTER)
HUCKABEE: Hello? I’m sorry. I’m right in the middle of an event.
It’s who? It’s God?
(LAUGHTER)
HUCKABEE: On the phone for me? How did he get my number? Oh, God has everybody’s number. OK? Yes, I’ll hold.
(LAUGHTER)
HUCKABEE: Yes, God? Yes, sir, I’m right in the middle of–the president’s coming. Yes, sir, he sure is. Oh, yes, sir, he’s here, too. He is.
(LAUGHTER)
HUCKABEE: You see, you say you want–you need an autograph. Oh, for Sampson. I understand, yes, lord.
(LAUGHTER)
HUCKABEE: And, you know, God, this is a pretty big event. We’ve got a lot of people and I’ve only got a very short time here. Oh, you’ve got all the time in the world. I understand. Yes, lord. And you want me to deliver a message. And that would be?
Yes, sir. Well, we want–yes, sir. We want to do what’s right. And our president does. And we’re behind him, yes, sir, we sure are. Yes, sir, we know you don’t take sides in the election.(LAUGHTER)
HUCKABEE: But, if you did, we kind of think you’d hang in there with us, lord, we really do. So…
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
HUCKABEE: Yes, sir. We’ll pass those good words on. I see. You talked to the president and he talks to you anyway. And we know that. And we know that–yes, sir. Take care of the family and marriage and the people of America and all the people and the children.
And, yes, sir, I can tell you, every one of us are committed to doing that and a whole army of people out here, and we pledge we’ll do our very best to do that, sir. Yes, sir. Well, thank you for blessing me, and we’ll bless you, too. Thank you. And thank you.(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
Isn't it a very bad sin to claim to know what God is thinking and speak on His behalf?
November 29th, 2007 at 2:22 pmThat is so phucked up it's beyond belief. And the fact that the crowd cheered that performance is even scarier.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:25 pmThis bit is so much better when its inventor and master, Bob Newhart, do it.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:25 pmScience changes with every generation and with new discoveries, and God doesn’t
In other words, science advances, so it is worthy of suspicion.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:28 pmJeebus. He might disprove evolution by his mere existence. I'm sure he's a nice man and all--by this is way freakier than Kucinich's ufo.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:29 pmI'll take the UFO guy any day of the week, thanks.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:29 pmUh, the God thing, you know the Magical Invisible Faerie in the Sky is made up by Primitive Man a couple thousand years ago. There is no such thing as this "God", it is a faerie tale, like the easter bunny and Santa, all made up.
I do not like any candidate to believe in something that does not exist, it shows that they cannot think their way out of primitive caves, much less make intelligent decisions about anything.
Atheist = Evolved thought / Religious = Primitive superstition
Buck Fush
November 29th, 2007 at 2:30 pmComment by Menehune — November 29, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
Aaaah, damn. At the same time, no less.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:30 pmThat's why Pat Robertson who always speaks to God supported Giuliani,and not Hcukabee. Pat does not like comptetion.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:31 pmgeez. Amazing how something that is obviously a joke, and meant to be a joke, is twisted around to look like something it isn't. George Burns claimed to be god three times, i guess he was a whacko neo-con. Steve Carell claimed to talk with God. Another right wing nut job, i guess. Please, folks - learn how to take a joke!
November 29th, 2007 at 2:31 pmHuman beings are stupid animals that need to be completely eradicated from the planet as soon as possible, before they do any more damage.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:33 pmIt is a joke to be for the death penalty and against abortion. Likewise, it is also a joke to be against the death penalty and for abortion.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:35 pmHence, Huckabee is 100% unqualified for the highest office in the land. End of story.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:35 pmgeez. Amazing how something that is obviously a joke, and meant to be a joke, is twisted around to look like something it isn’t. George Burns claimed to be god three times, i guess he was a whacko neo-con. Steve Carell claimed to talk with God. Another right wing nut job, i guess. Please, folks - learn how to take a joke!
Comment by happybill — November 29, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
Huck was NOT joking. Dont be a turd and say he was. Any so called christian that claims to ahv a convo with the almighty is in need of a mental evaluation. Oh...and the rapture is made up bull*his.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:35 pmHuckabee and the other politicians will do anything, say anything just to get votes. Their supporters should see this as farce and corrupt.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:35 pmHuckabee and the other politicians will do anything, say anything just to get votes. Their supporters should see this as farce and corrupt.
Comment by celtic cynic — November 29, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
But they wont. Theyve been raised just as narrow-minded as the wahhabist murderers that hunt our people now. Dont give them any credit for thought. They werent taught how to think, just what to do...not a good deal for the rest of us.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:37 pmGeorge Burns claimed to be god three times, i guess he was a whacko neo-con. Steve Carell claimed to talk with God. Another right wing nut job, i guess. Please, folks - learn how to take a joke!
Comment by happybill — November 29, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
Another wingnut who can't tell the difference between fiction and reality.
George Burns didn't "claim to be God". He played God in a movie. Three times. The words were written down for him to recite.
Steve Carell didn't "claim to talk with God". He played a character who talked to God in a movie.
Sheesh. This explains why the wingnuts like torturing people. They think "24" is a documentary.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:37 pmPlease, folks - learn how to take a joke!
Comment by happybill — November 29, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
We know how to take a joke. We consider Huckabee's entire campaign a joke, and thus we make fun of it at every opportunity.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:37 pmGod speaks English pretty well, considering it's a second language.
-Austin Lounge Lizards, Jesus Loves Me But He Can't Stand You
November 29th, 2007 at 2:37 pmRogerX2
I think God is a socialist.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:39 pm#21 You think God is against Freedom and Democracy? You aren't Castro are you?
November 29th, 2007 at 2:40 pmR2, no one is "for abortion". No one cheers when a fetus is aborted. No one thinks MORE abortions would be a good idea. Except maybe Bill bennett when he's talking about black babies.
The people you say are "for abortion" are actually for the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy safely and legally.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:40 pmMost of us who worship God prefer that He be treated with a bit more reverence. I guess this doesn't matter to Republicans, who are so accustomed to exploiting Him for political purposes that the concept of "worship" has become foreign to them.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:41 pmLet's see...
First, Hillary plants a questioner at her own event, followed by the disclaimer that it was all a misunderstanding and "will never happen again." Two or three weeks later, a Hillary operative gets planted at a REPUBLICAN event. CNN will say Hillary had nothing to do with it, of course, as will she (assuming the press ever asks her, on which I would not bet a whole lot). Only how did this guy come to CNN's attention? By chance? And once on their radar screen, how does he get selected to be one of the few out of thousands to ask a question? Also by chance? Some cub CNN reporter just happened to think he was a good pick?
Ha!
This is the same Hillary who engaged in the most flagrant episode of prosecutorial abuse I ever saw in detail [pre-Mike Nifong]. To wit, this is the same Hillary who orchestrated the Billy Dale prosecution, the design of which was not to bring Mr. Dale to account for his misdeeds at the White House Travel Office, there having been none, but to pry him out of there so that she could give the travel business to her pals, the Thomasons.
And this is the Hillary who groans about the loss of integrity and politicization of the Justice Department.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:41 pmAnother wingnut who can’t tell the difference between fiction and reality.
George Burns didn’t “claim to be Godâ€. He played God in a movie. Three times. The words were written down for him to recite.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — November 29, 2007 @ 2:37 pm
BTW, we all know God is a black woman anyway.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:41 pmJT -- off topic much?
November 29th, 2007 at 2:42 pmRogerX2
God is a socialist because he likes people, in fact he loves them. He's very social, perfectly socialist, in fact. None better.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:42 pmWow. so all you folks think he went up on stage to "give an invocation" with a cell phone in his hand, and this was not a scripted joke? Just the fact that he never gave this "invocation" at all should tell you that this was planned from the beginning. Use some grey matter, folks...
November 29th, 2007 at 2:43 pmJeez TP, don't be jealous that the Huckster has a direct line to God and you don't.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:43 pmHuckabee asserted that God was with the Republicans and President Bush
That's positively Old Testement, God being so devious and all. When do we get to the part where the angel of the Lord stays Bush's hand just as he reaches for the red button, saying "just testin' ya out there Georgie"?
November 29th, 2007 at 2:43 pmThe problem is that conservatives will love this - especially the abortion position, and that he can sound reasonable when he wants to as well -- when he was on the Daily Show the audience (Jon Stewart's audience!) cheered him repeatedly.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:43 pmmike huckabee = nut job
November 29th, 2007 at 2:45 pmThat was funny. Thanks for posting it. But is this the best you can do?
Comment by cold_hard_left — November 29, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
i agree, it was funny!
but shouldn't we be asking: is this the best huck can do?
November 29th, 2007 at 2:47 pmYou aren’t Castro are you?
Comment by Roger_Roger — November 29, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
dude, i though you were castro!
November 29th, 2007 at 2:49 pm"we kind of think you’d hang in there with us, Lord, we really do."
Ummm, no. I'm pretty sure God isn't with them.
BTW, that was really savvy question he was asked. Typical political dodge of a response, too.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:49 pmAnyone interested in what Huckabee is really like face to face should try this funny (but it actually happened) column:
November 29th, 2007 at 2:49 pmhttp://goupstate.us/index.php/lanefiller/2007/11/02/title_14
Who is "Sampson"?
November 29th, 2007 at 2:51 pmWeird stuff.
Please, folks - learn how to take a joke!
Comment by happybill
We don't have to 'learn' to take a joke, we already have one as president. And a joke of a troll too, if you ask me.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:52 pmI gave RogerX2 chancesX2 to give me his definition of "socialism" but he dodgedX2. I guess I'll just say ByeX2 for now.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:53 pmOh, crikey. I'm gonna hurl.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:54 pmcold hard left:
Hey there.
Just wanted you to know I responded to your post about Crist yesterday. I was just late back to the thread. Wanted you to know I wasn't ignoring you. Happy threads to you. :)
Now back to the topic at hand...
November 29th, 2007 at 2:55 pmAnother yawn thread...
November 29th, 2007 at 2:57 pmToasterhead: "Isn’t it a very bad sin to claim to know what God is thinking and speak on His behalf?"
During the time of Jesus, one could be stoned to death for claiming to know what God was thinking.
And Roger, God may not be a socialist, but Jesus was more like a communist than anything else.
“For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required.†— Luke 12:48
And, he was definitely a "bleeding-heart liberal"
"For when I was hungry, you gave me food; when thirsty, you gave me drink; when I was a stranger, you took me into your home, when naked you clothed me; when I was ill you came to my help, when in prison you visited me."Â Â
November 29th, 2007 at 2:57 pm   - Matthew 25: 35-37
Why is it that the creator of the universe only talks to rich old white Republican men? Is god a lobbyist?
November 29th, 2007 at 2:58 pmSo is my God the same as the Jewish God? Or the Hindu God? Or the Muslim God? Or the Morman God? Or the Aztec God? Or the Jehova's Witness God? Or the So. Baptist God? Or the Catholic God? Or the Protestant God? Or the Quakers God? or the...oh nevermind.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:58 pmThe Catholic one of course.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:02 pmRet. Col. Jack Ripper
Jesus was more like a communist than anything else.
And he also had the magical ability to turn one fish into two fish, and to heal people.
Until there is a cost free method of doing that in the real world, any comparisons/references are severely lacking.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:02 pmIt's a delightful and funny bit when Bob Newhart does it.
Very scary when a member of the American Taliban does it.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:04 pm“Science changes with every generation and with new discoveries, and God doesn’t,†he says. “So I’ll stick with God if the two are in conflict.â€
God doesn't change? Didn't the world use to be flat? Wasn't earth the center of the Universe? Didn't God back up these bogus theories (with penalty of death)?
Man's perception of God changes with every generation. People accept and reject various parts of their respective holy scriptures according to whatever they want to prove or disprove at that particular moment in time.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:05 pmGod speaks to using bolts of lightning, fire and brimstone, pillars of salt and an I-phone.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:06 pmYanno, we all know that Huckie's bit is supposed to be comedy...
But the thing is, after suffering through 6 years under a president who is a raving sociopathic lunatic who claims that God talks personally to him ...
Well, let's just say it just ain't funny anymore.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:07 pmHuckabee = Nucking Futz
November 29th, 2007 at 3:09 pmBARTLEBEE
God wants you to vote your conscience.
Is that a new candidate running this year?
November 29th, 2007 at 3:11 pmAnd he also had the magical ability to turn one fish into two fish, and to heal people.
Until there is a cost free method of doing that in the real world, any comparisons/references are severely lacking.
Comment by Squegeeboo — November 29, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
You completely miss any lesson in the Bible with that comment. You suggest that people would do the right thing so long as it didn't cost them anything. And you get that from the "magical abilities" of Jesus. Consider the "magical abilities" of George Bush. With a wave of his hand he could have directed trillions of $ to help the poor and needy. Instead he waved them and the planes flew, the bombs dropped, the soldiers attacked. Had he waved it in favor of the poor you'd be no worse off then you are today, that would make it cost free as far as you're concerned. You can justify spending your money on attacking a country for no valid reason but you need some greater justification to use that money to help the sick & poor. Strange priorities.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:11 pmThe real question here is who's God's Telcom, and how long
before 9/11 did God's Telcom start spying on the
American people?
November 29th, 2007 at 3:12 pmBARTLEBEE
God wants you to vote your conscience.
Is that a new candidate running this year?
Comment by Squegeeboo — November 29, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
Not from what I've seen.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:13 pmIn last night's Republican CNN/YouTube debate, Rudy Giuliani provided Americans with a rare moment of candor about the Bible and himself. Asked if every word of the Bible was literally true, Giuliani replied that much of it was "allegorical." Given his repeated distortions, exaggerations and outright falsehoods, Giuliani could have been describing his own campaign. In the Gospel According to Rudy, the tale of the 9/11 hero fighting terrorist evil isn't literally true, either.
For the details, see:
November 29th, 2007 at 3:14 pm"The Gospel According to Rudy."
That's just bad writing... It actually started out kind of funny, and I was impressed with Huckabee's performance, then at the end, when it was supposed to become kind of serious ("we pledge we'll do our very best, sir!"), it really really fell flat. Typical GOP "humor"... awkward, weird, and not very funny.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:16 pmDave C
You suggest that people would do the right thing so long as it didn’t cost them anything. And you get that from the “magical abilities†of Jesus. Consider the “magical abilities†of George Bush. With a wave of his hand he could have directed trillions of $ to help the poor and needy.
You're right, instead of helping any one, Jesus should have only helped the rich/powerful. Think of all the opportunity costs he absorbed by helping people who were incapable of moving him into a greater position of power or wealth.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:17 pmIt all makes perfect sense when you consider that the "god" that the GOP worships is in fact a Diebold computer.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:19 pm"Theres little difference between the atheist and the religious zealot"
Yeah, right....Sorry Bartlebee but you're wrong, you just don't know it yet.
Buck Fush
November 29th, 2007 at 3:24 pmComment by Squegeeboo — November 29, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
Whatever dude. Upon further reflection your original thought... "Until there is a cost free method of doing that in the real world, any comparisons/references are severely lacking" is flawed. Even given such "magical abilities" to help people in a cost free method a Republican would commercialize the ability, screw the poor people and try & become a brazilianaire.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:27 pmBart - zealots come in ALL varieties - not just religious. I mean, take a look at our trolls - they're zealots.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:29 pmHmmm. But then again, I suppose the Cult of Bush *could* qualify as a religion. ...
November 29th, 2007 at 3:30 pmAs I said before, an Atheist is just as fanatical and closed minded as a religious zealot.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
That's an incredibly narrow view based on an incredible lack of information.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:31 pmI prefer the Cult of Hello Kitty. Extra adorability for everyone!
November 29th, 2007 at 3:32 pmDave C
Even given such “magical abilities†to help people in a cost free method a Republican would commercialize the ability, screw the poor people and try & become a brazilianaire.
Well sure, because your still missing one important part. Jesus was the son of God. There's no real upward mobility at that point unless he's going to try and dispose his father, therefor anything he does has 0 real or opportunity costs associated with it, it's like he's playing a video game, why not be nice for no reason, it doesn't cost him anything. For a normal person to have magical powers along the line of Jesus's, there are still opportunity costs based off of gains that can be realized in this world, the only world we are sure exists, as opposed to Jesus being able to go to Heaven once he got bored here.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:35 pmIt is a joke to be for the death penalty and against abortion. Likewise, it is also a joke to be against the death penalty and for abortion.
Comment by Roger_Roger — November 29, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
-----------------------------
Allow me to explain the flaw in your logic. You don't seem to consider the REASONS for people's beliefs:
Republicans oppose abortion because they view the lives of "God's Children" as "sacred" and "precious". The problem is that they don't apply the same logic to the death penalty.
Democrats are against the death penalty because of the abundant evidence that MANY poor black people have been put to death for crimes they did not commit. We are "for" abortion because we view it as something that should be determined by a woman and her doctor - not by a bunch of Sunday-Morning Christians.
You see, the logic behind the Democrat's views are not in conflict, as are those of the Repukes.
Right???
November 29th, 2007 at 3:38 pm** WARNING: NO JOKE **
If you think the cell phone routine is a joke then you are clueless. I personally know a fantastic number of Bush voters who were single issue voters for Bush. That one issue is God. These people are impossible to talk to about any social or political issue, because there are no issues just whether or not the candidate is walking with and talking to God. If you are one with their definition of God, then they have no problem with the Decider doing all of the deciding because it's as if God is making the decisions. Essentially they don't really need Democracy at all, just a God talking daddy to watch over the nation.
I wish everyone, including all Senate and House Dems, would spend a couple of hours each week watching Christian TV. If you think FOX is a GOPer love fest, try CBN. You'll actually hear very little about your soul, and the 10 Commandments and all that stuff. It's mostly political. Here's a teaser:
* Did you know Democrats are evil racists
* Did you know blacks should thank Republicans for Civil Rights
* Did you know activist judges are taking God out of the schools
* Did you know Dubya is the first true Christian POTUS
* Did you know the founding fathers established a Christian nation
* Did you know Indians were slaughtered to make a Christian nation
* Did you know Jesus wants you to be rich
* Did you know America is persecuting Christians
* Did you know Muslims are pure evil
* Did you know multiculturalism is why America is going to hell
* Did you know Gays are why America is going to hell
* Did you know Gays cause abortions
* Did you know Hollywood is why America is going to hell
* Did you know God wants us to bomb Iran?
If you think Hucky's cell phone to God is a joke, then you're out of touch with the vast number of Americans who follow Evangelical hucksters down the GOP path. What pisses me off about all of this is that i know my tax dollars are supporting these ass-clowns. Every time Pelosi and all all BushCo to direct more tax dollars into their religious networks, those dollars end up in the pockets of these TV preachers. Our taxes are being spent to brain-wash more Americans to vote Republican because they are the party of God. Just ignore all of the underage sex, same sex relationships, wife cheating, stealing, taking bribes, and many, many other crimes because they're the Godly ones.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:39 pmAs I said, theres little difference between the atheist and the religious man. You’re both fanatics.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 3:32 pm
I've got to diagree. "fanatic" is defined as: marked by excessive enthusiasm for and intense devotion to a cause or idea.
One can be religous and not be fanatical.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:40 pmOne can also be non-religous and still not be fanatical.
BARTLEBEE
And as it slowly dawns on you and Buckie Boy that you can no more prove that a God does not exist than Mike Huckleberry can prove one does, perhaps you’ll recognize the fanaticism of your own “religionâ€, that is, the religion of atheism.
Well there's the flaw in claiming atheism is a religion.
Atheists(for the most part) 'believe' in what can be proven. Gravity, physics, mathematics, etc. So it isn't really a belief. Making my usage of the term wrong. People don't believe 1 + 1 = 2, the KNOW that it equals 2.
Religion requires you to believe in something that can not be proven(God), and in some cases, believe that which has been disproven (ie, the age of Earth).
Atheism requires that you know what can be proven or at least heavily supported with facts and observations(The earth being roughly 4.5 billion years old), and be skeptical of that which can not be proven or supported(God).
One requires Belief, the other requires Knowledge
November 29th, 2007 at 3:42 pmI know folks who don't want their tax dollars being spent on war (including some people who take "turn the other cheek" and "blessed are the Peacemakers" from the Bible seriously). Why does the anti-abortion crowd get to insist that government money is not spent on abortions, but nobody else can dictate where their tax money goes?
November 29th, 2007 at 3:42 pmBartlebee, How does "lack of proof" equal "fantacism"? It sounds like you're confusing the term "fanatacism" with "belief".
I've never seen any kind of mass movement of atheists seeking to impose their view of morality on anyone else. THAT would seem to me to be an indication of fanatacism.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:43 pmThe only calls I get on my cell phone are from the Flying Spagetti Monster. He usually just calls to tell me god doesn't exist.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:43 pmBartlebee, maybe it would help if you offered some evidence of the fantacism of atheists?
November 29th, 2007 at 3:47 pmBartlebee, there is a huge difference between an atheist and a religious man.
In case you haven't noticed, religious men believe some text written by some ancient men and even more disturbing is some believe some text written by one man that came, supposedly, in a top secret tablet (or something silly). These men interpret these writings in different ways yet they want to impose their interpretations on all people of the world.
An atheist realizes that there has been no communication to or from one or any number of Gods.
If both atheists and religious men are fanatics, then what are you?
November 29th, 2007 at 3:47 pmComment by ScrewBush — November 29, 2007 @ 3:39 pm
-----------------------------
No doubt!!! I'm not religious, not was I overly political until Bush ran for POTUS the first time. I never really knew (or cared) what an "EVANGELICAL" Christian was.
After seeing some video clips from their church services, I have to admit these people really freak me out!
Really makes you wonder what is the difference between Evangelicals and your average cult.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:49 pmBart - I'm an atheist, but I'm not fanatical about it. I used to be the same kind of Christian.
*shrug*
November 29th, 2007 at 3:51 pmBARTLEBEE
Atheism is the DISBELIEF in the existence of a God or Theology, which is as fanatical as the religious zealot.
Weird, I didn't find that line anywhere in the wiki entry, but what I did find was:
Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2] When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities,[3] alternatively called nontheism.[4] Although atheism is often equated with irreligion, some religious philosophies, such as secular theology and some varieties of Theravada Buddhism, also lack belief in a personal god.
Additionally:
Practical atheism
In practical, or pragmatic, atheism, also known as apatheism, individuals live as if there are no gods and explain natural phenomena without resorting to the divine. The existence of gods is not denied, but may be designated unnecessary or useless
Theoretical atheism
Theoretical, or contemplative, atheism explicitly posits arguments against the existence of gods, responding to common theistic arguments such as the argument from design or Pascal's Wager. The theoretical reasons for rejecting gods assume various psychological, sociological, metaphysical, and epistemological forms.
So it sounds like my original point still stands. You need to understand there is a huge difference between proving and disproving a negative(or in this case, belief in, vs disbelief in a negative). Then maybe you'll begin to understand the difference between atheism and religion.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:52 pmComment by Squegeeboo — November 29, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
----------------------------
But who's on first? : )
This is quite a heated discussion on christianity vs. atheism. Is there anyone else who just doesn't know for sure?
November 29th, 2007 at 3:55 pm"The tendency to claim God as an ally for our partisan values is the source of all religious fanaticism." (American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr).
November 29th, 2007 at 3:57 pm"And we know that. And we know that–yes, sir. Take care of the family and marriage and the people of America and all the people and the children."
Well, unless they're poor.
And black.
And live in the 9th Ward in NOLA.
And rely on SCHIPs.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:59 pmTo decide “I believe in thisâ€, or “I don’t believe in thatâ€, based on no physical evidence whatsover on both parts, and then to passionately advocate one of the two, is the very definition of a fanatic.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
I don't think you have a very good dictionary.
Here's a couple of definitions of "fanatic" from dictionary.com:
a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics
A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.
Both examples here cite extreme as a primary criterion for a fanatic. You seem to think that anyone who believes something that cannot be proven is a fanatic. In other words, you equate "belief" with "fanaticism". That's wrong. It is possible to be a believer without being a fanatic. It's actually the norm, in my experience.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:00 pmGod is an Atheist.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:01 pmBARTLEBEE
To decide “I believe in thisâ€, or “I don’t believe in thatâ€, based on no physical evidence whatsover on both parts, and then to passionately advocate one of the two, is the very definition of a fanatic.
Actually, do disbelieve in something with no evidence makes good sense. To believe in it with out evidence does not.
Think of it this way:
100+ years ago, people said the moon was made of cheese.
Here was the evidence at the time: You could see the moon.
Both views could be correct, and there was ways to prove/disprove it
Then, as science advanced, one was proven wrong, the other was accepted.
There is a god that is responsible for everything
Evidence: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, trying to use the fact that there is a universe to support any concept of a god is flawed, it would be like if there was no moon, but using Cheese to say there is a big floating orb in the heavens made of Cheese
With out anything to support the idea of God, besides some ancient peoples imagination, you are either forced to go the scientific route and disbelieve, or go the other route, and accept every idea of a god, including the Pastafarianism, Frisbetarianism, and any other cult or religion that has ever been, as being the correct choice.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:02 pmWell thats the message I’ve been crucified for putting out there.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
Ha ha ha. Crucified in a religious discussion.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:02 pmGeorge Burns claimed to be god three times, i guess he was a whacko neo-con. Steve Carell claimed to talk with God. Another right wing nut job, i guess. Please, folks - learn how to take a joke!
Comment by happybill — November 29, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
Those are examples of movies, nitwit. You're kidding, right? If not, then you're insane. Buhbye.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:03 pmAtheism is the DISBELIEF in the existence of a God or Theology, which is as fanatical as the religious zealot.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
If you revise that statement to say "may be as fanatical", I'd agree. I know atheist fanatics just as I've met religious fanatics--they're people who believe so strongly in the nonexistence of God that they are willing to label any spirituality or religion as proof of the believer's complete stupidity.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:03 pmNice. Now try addressing what I wrote, instead of inventing a strawman that I never said, and answering yourself.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 3:43 pm
And check your definition. It confirms what I stated.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 3:44 pm
Post # 76. You said "You're both fanatics" Do you now deny saying this?
And your making an inherently flawed arguement. Its impossible for anyone to debate your position. The non-existence of an object, person, thing, diety cannot be disproven (which is what you are asking me to do) How can I or anyone prove the non-existence of a non-existent object if the object never existed in the first place.
Please see the concept of falsifiability. Wikipedia has a good article about it.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:03 pmAtheism is the DISBELIEF in the existence of a God or Theology, which is as fanatical as the religious zealot. --- BARTLEBEE
Sorry but I must respectfully disagree.
I am atheist. I do not believe in the invisible guy in the sky. I rely on the KNOWLEDGE of science, which can be proven.
I could give a flip who believes in that invisible guy in the sky, as long as they do not try to impose those beliefs on me.
Please explain why this is fanatical.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:03 pmSpeaking only for myself. I don't "believe" there is no God. I merely see no evidence for the existence of any deity. I think that it's safe to say most atheists feel the same way.
From Wikipedia:
Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2] When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities,[3] alternatively called nontheism.[4] Although atheism is often equated with irreligion, some religious philosophies, such as secular theology and some varieties of Theravada Buddhism, also lack belief in a personal god.
Many self-described atheists are skeptical of all supernatural beings and cite a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities. Others argue for atheism on philosophical, social or historical grounds. Although many self-described atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism[5] and naturalism,[6] there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.
I'm definitely in the group which "rejects theism" and I'm "skeptical of all supernatural beings". To assert that I (not speaking for anyone else) am "fanatical in my belief" demonstrates a lack of understanding of me and atheism. In fact, it demonstrates such a fundamental lack of understanding that it's impossible to even argue the point.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:05 pmIn here, on a regular basis I see people vehemenently denying the existence of God, while they ridicule those who believe in God as lunatics and fanatics. They dedicate thousands of comments to their fanatical belief that there is no God, which makes them fanatics, at least as fanatical as the typical armchair religious zealot.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
I'll grant you that there are some "fanatical" atheists on these boards.
But surely those fanatics are judged against others, who may or may not believe in God but do not loudly proclaim so.
The existence of a few fanatics does not prove your proposition that, to believe, one must be a fanatic. In fact, the existence of ANY believers (or non-believers, as the case may be) who are less than fanatical by your definition expilcitly disproves your contention that an atheist (or a professed Christian, for that matter) is by definition a fanatic.
Of course, if you define "fanaticism" the same way you define "belief" then you're good to go. You've got a solid argument. It's just based on a faulty vocabulary.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:06 pmWell thats the message I’ve been crucified for putting out there.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
November 29th, 2007 at 4:06 pm--------------------------
Dave C beat me to it. Crucified is an interesting choice of words. : )
I am told (by a fanatical atheist) that there are atheists and there are Atheists, a distinction which is apparently clear to a/Atheists and no one else.
I drift back and forth between agnosticism and various spiritual interpretations because, basically, I have no idea what is true. Sometimes I believe I know, and other times I'm thoroughly convinced I'm wrong.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:08 pmThe message is mixed above, but most of it appears to be that Huckabee is unfit for office because he is a Christian.
Comment by cold_hard_left — November 29, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
More proof, if any were needed, that you're incapable of reading what is written.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:08 pmThe message is mixed above, but most of it appears to be that Huckabee is unfit for office because he is a Christian.
Comment by cold_hard_left — November 29, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
No. He's unfit for office because he's a science-denying religious fanatic who pretends to talk to God on his cell phone.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:09 pmBARTLEBEE
Really?
Well let me help you there Flavius.
Try the FIRST TWO SENTENCES.
Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2] When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities
Gee, that was hard, huh?
Weird, that doesn't match what you first said wikipedia had, but rather what I said they had.
But lets try explaining again, simpler:
When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities
belief(lacking any possible proof) in deities is not the same as disbelief(due to 0 proof) in deities.
Just like:belief(lacking any possible proof) in deities is not the same as belief(due to empirical scientific studies, data, confirmed observations, etc) in things such as the explanations for thunder, earthquakes, the Sun. All things that have been explained by science that were once attributed to God, or gods will, or gods fighting each other, or god's using chariots to pull balls of fire.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:09 pmAtheist = Evolved thought / Religious = Primitive superstition
I do not like any candidate to believe in something that does not exist, it shows that they cannot think their way out of primitive caves, much less make intelligent decisions about anything.
Comment by Buckie Boy — November 29, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
Question is; is it possible to be a declared atheist and win the presidency? I don't think we've evolved that far yet - just my opinion.
Also, are there ANY candidates running right now who don't believe in the great fairy tale?
November 29th, 2007 at 4:09 pmThis is quite a heated discussion on christianity vs. atheism. Is there anyone else who just doesn’t know for sure?
Comment by Vet — November 29, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
Well thats the message I’ve been crucified for putting out there.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
Wrong, Bartlebee. The message you've been "crucified" for putting out there is that an atheist is by definition just as big a "fanatic" as a Christian.
And this "crucifixion" consisted of various posters examining your claims and disagreeing with them. Pretty politely and reasonably, too.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:11 pmBARTLEBEE
Its fanatical because you have no foundations for your “belief systemâ€.
Anyone with a belief system based on a lack of information can be deemed fanatical if they passionately herald that belief to others.
No. Fail. You need to take some logic courses, even by my normal trolling standards that is some seriously flawed logic.
IT does have a foundation. It's foundation is the sciences. People believe in Earth because they live on it, there is proof of it's existance, people believe in gravity because when you let go of something it falls to the ground.
Atheists are atheists because there is no proof currently, or ever(that has been verified) that supports the existence of any god. Until there is something that you can point to, scientifically, that supports a god, there is no reason to believe in one.
It's that simple. Religion requires belief with no foundation. Atheism does not.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:14 pmAlso, are there ANY candidates running right now who don’t believe in the great fairy tale?
Comment by Namtillaku — November 29, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
Not even close. Atheists are the single group which is, effectively, barred from public office for religious reasons.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:14 pmWrong, Bartlebee. The message you’ve been “crucified†for putting out there is that an atheist is by definition just as big a “fanatic†as a Christian.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — November 29, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
Not from what I've seen. He seems to be saying that fanatical atheists are just as fanatical as fanatical Christians. Not all Christians proselytize, nor do all atheists. But those that do often make the rest look bad.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:15 pmNot as extreme as Tomas Torquemada to be sure, but fanatics nonetheless.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
what a load.
The message is mixed above, but most of it appears to be that Huckabee is unfit for office because he is a Christian.
Comment by cold_hard_left — November 29, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
what another load.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:16 pmI feel like I’m talking to a two year old Troll.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
I feel like I'm reading one.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:20 pmIts fanatical because you have no foundations for your “belief systemâ€.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
As stated the foundation of my "belief" or KNOWLEDGE rather is of science.
That can be proved, whereas the invisible guy in the sky cannot.
You still have not shown why belief in science is fanatical.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:21 pmNot from what I’ve seen. He seems to be saying that fanatical atheists are just as fanatical as fanatical Christians. Not all Christians proselytize, nor do all atheists. But those that do often make the rest look bad.
Comment by toasterhead — November 29, 2007 @ 4:15 pm
He has come to that message. But he started out by saying:
an Aethist is just as fanatical and closed minded as a religious zealot. Neither of you can prove the veracity of your claims, yet both of you talk as if the matters been settled.
I took "an atheist" to mean the generic, when Bartlebee may have meant "an Atheist zealot is just as fanatical and closed minded as a religious zealot."
But he didn't make that distinction. More, he repeatedly criticized atheism itself as fanatical, with no logical basis for that criticism. it was only later in the discussion that he focused on "fanatical atheists". Most of his criticism was based not on behavior but on the fact of belief or disbelief, with either being sufficient grounds to term one a "fanatic".
November 29th, 2007 at 4:24 pmIT does have a foundation. It’s foundation is the sciences. People believe in Earth because they live on it, there is proof of it’s existance, people believe in gravity because when you let go of something it falls to the ground.
Atheists are atheists because there is no proof currently, or ever(that has been verified) that supports the existence of any god. Until there is something that you can point to, scientifically, that supports a god, there is no reason to believe in one.
Comment by Squegeeboo — November 29, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Einstein had some quite wonderful quotes on how his research solidified his belief in a creator. To him, God is the author of e=mc^2.
On the other hand, using the scientific method to prove the existence of God is, by nature, a false one. Religion is based on faith. Proof denies faith, rendering God useless. Particularly if the Babel Fish is ever discovered.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:25 pmI think not having a predefined “belief system†is preferred to having one.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 4:20 pm
What is "predefined" about atheism?
You don't believe in God? Isn't that pretty much it?
November 29th, 2007 at 4:27 pmBartlebee seems to think that Atheism is arrived at as a belief system. While I can't speak for all of them, the atheists I know have become atheists because they could find no reason to support a system that relied on "belief" and "faith" rather than investigation and proof. True atheists are not agnostics, they have no question in their minds about the existence of a god, and don't feel that it is a belief, but rather a fact that hasn't been disproven since the dawn of humanity, in any way, shape or form that can be positively proven. To call that a belief doesn't seem consistent with the definition of the word.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:27 pmBack on topic. Here's a quote from the Huckster's web site:
My faith is my life - it defines me. My faith doesn't influence my decisions, it drives them.
As I wrote last night. This statement implies that no consideration, other than his faith, will influence his decisions. I might be wrong but, to me, such a position makes him unqualified for public office.
OT: The absence of belief in one thing does not entail belief in it's opposite. Also, many religions lack a "Creator God" yet still fall under the definition of "theism". I don't follow any of them enough to change my status as an atheist but, I don't ridicule them. I save my contempt for those who use religion to cause harm. I think the Huckster falls in that category. If my expressed contempt for him, and his ilk, is taken as an insult by another. It's a self-inflicted wound.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:28 pmComment by pete — November 29, 2007 @ 4:28 pm
I agree.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:29 pmIts fanatical because you have no foundations for your “belief systemâ€.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
The more I think about it, this statement is probably the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen you post.
You have no facts to support the basis of you conclusion
November 29th, 2007 at 4:29 pmBARTLEBEE
BARTLEBEE SAID
Atheism is the DISBELIEF in the existence of a God or Theology
Weird, I have you as saying:
Atheism is the DISBELIEF in the existence of a God or Theology, which is as fanatical as the religious zealot.
The second part of that never shows up even as a paraphrase in the wiki entry.
You did, came back with a load of horsesh$t claiming it did not, and then I posted the first two sentences which said exactly what I said.
Additionally, my first post on the wiki entry(post 99, which strangely enough was before you starting reposting those same two sentences and resorting to petty insults) also had those first two sentences, along with further definitions and explanations of Atheism, which you still seem to be ignoring, in favor of what can only be viewed as a 'clif notes' version of the definition. I was unaware we got to cherry pick the exact wording and definition when multiple ones are provided.
But back to my standard line I'm still waiting on an answer for:
Religion requires a belief in what can not be proven
Atheism requires a disbelief in that which has yet to be proven
Do you understand the difference inherent in those two lines?
November 29th, 2007 at 4:30 pmFine.
Please provide scientific foundations to support your “disbelief†in the existence of a God.
I’ll be waiting right here.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
BAHAHA, sorry, but that's a completely 'stupid' comment. Unless you have scientific proof that something exists, then it's nothing but an unscientific theory. You don't have to prove something doesn't exist, you have to prove that it does exist!
I'm waiting for your scientific proof that there is a god, because until you can prove there is one, then what you have is just that - a 'belief', and not a fact.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:32 pmCrucify Him! Crucify Him!
-Andrew Lloyd Webber
November 29th, 2007 at 4:32 pmIts fanatical because you have no foundations for your “belief systemâ€.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
What a STUPID comment. If you can't prove something exists, then saying you don't believe it exists until it can be proven isn't 'fanatical', it's rational. You really are a moron when it comes to religion Bart.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:33 pmLefty Patriot
To call that a belief doesn’t seem consistent with the definition of the word.
That in itself gets in a sticky area if you don't first define how you are using belief. Some people use it to describe things that can not be proven, but are just accepted, others use it in a looser form, where they believe 1+1 = 2, and they believe it because it can be proven to be true.
Even most of the standard definitions don't seem to separate different kinds of belief, but just put out the basic, most simple definition.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:34 pmBARTLEBEE
Religions is mans way of expanding his thought to allow for things beyond what science and hard data can teach them. It may be futile, but at least its an attempt.
Really? I think of Religion as mans way of explaining what can not currently be explained because science has yet to advance that far. Lightning used to be Zeus being upset, now we know it's caused by electron discharges in clouds. Earthquakes were due to gods fighting, or just because he/it/they were angry, now we know it's plate tectonics, etc, etc, etc. As science continues to advance, religion has less and less to offer people besides views on an afterlife, and who knows, science may get that far one day too.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:38 pmGee, someone better tell Albert Einstein then.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
Yes, and all of those scientific theories (the non-religious ones) have been TESTED by science. Because unlike you, Albert knew the difference between science and not-science.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:38 pmThe true conundrum, of those infected by belief, is that they can not conceive the absence of their belief without an alternative.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:38 pmBartlebee seems to think that Atheism is arrived at as a belief system. While I can’t speak for all of them, the atheists I know have become atheists because they could find no reason to support a system that relied on “belief†and “faith†rather than investigation and proof. True atheists are not agnostics, they have no question in their minds about the existence of a god, and don’t feel that it is a belief, but rather a fact that hasn’t been disproven since the dawn of humanity, in any way, shape or form that can be positively proven. To call that a belief doesn’t seem consistent with the definition of the word.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — November 29, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
Fundamentally, everything is a belief system. What's your proof that anything exists? Every fact is still an observation filtered through five human senses. At the most fundamental level, you must make the subconscious decision to believe that what you are seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, and tasting is in fact real and not a dream or hallucination. Every fact, every observation, every item of proof you take in subsequently still builds on your initial belief in reality.
Sorry, it's a bit Matrixy, I know.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:38 pmAnd yes. Atheism IS a BELIEF!!!
It is the BELIEF, that GOD does not exist.
(Hint: When wiki told you it was a NON BELIEF that God exists, thats another way of saying a BELIEF that GOD does not exist)
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
Actually it's a theory, based on the FACT that if God did exist you could scientifically test for it and prove it. That's the difference between SCIENCE and FAIRY TALES - TESTABILITY. You're generally pretty bright, obviously this is when you act more like a republican than a thinking person.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:39 pmI’ve never seen any kind of mass movement of atheists seeking to impose their view of morality on anyone else. THAT would seem to me to be an indication of fanatacism.
ralph the wonder llama
Gee, I dunno, seems like revolutionary and Napoleonic France, revolutionary Mexico, the Soviet Union, the Peoples Republic of China come to mind...
THe problem is neither religiousity nor atheism. The problem is intolerance. An intolerant atheist is just as capable of persecuting as an intolerant Catholic.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:40 pmYeah, sure, that GOD of yours believes that not only should we have slaves, but that they should be beaten properly.
The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)
November 29th, 2007 at 4:40 pmThat in itself gets in a sticky area if you don’t first define how you are using belief. Some people use it to describe things that can not be proven, but are just accepted, others use it in a looser form, where they believe 1+1 = 2, and they believe it because it can be proven to be true.
Comment by Squegeeboo — November 29, 2007 @ 4:34 pm
It's not true. 1+1 can also equal 10.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:41 pmSo Bartlebee, someone suggests the government do something specific based on their religious belief and you call me a fanatic for telling them to go stuff themselves?!?
You seem to want to put everyone in one of two camps - religious belief system and non religious belief system and yet you have no belief system. You are confusing the hell out of me.
I am a atheist in that I don't believe God has spoken to anyone, or left any secret messages for anyone nor can anyone contact God or know what It thinks or desires.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:42 pmGee, nothing but strawmen left, huh?
Worthy of a troll even.
:|
Please scroll up Flavius, and find me the post where I stated God exists or that I believed God exists.
I’ll be here waiting.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 4:40 pm
Your posts are worthy of a troll, yes they are.
Either you have PROOF that God exists, or it's an unscientific, unfounded theory - which it is. If it's unscientific, it's not factual, and therefore your belief in it is unfounded. Period.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:42 pmTHe problem is neither religiousity nor atheism. The problem is intolerance. An intolerant atheist is just as capable of persecuting as an intolerant Catholic.
Comment by Chesire11 — November 29, 2007 @ 4:40 pm
Religion tends to be the most intolerant. I don't care what fairy tales you believe, but keep it to yourself, and STFU when it comes to government running based on your fairy tales.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:43 pmtoasterhead
It’s not true. 1+1 can also equal 10.
Hey, I don't care if you're on a computer, no using binary to further confuse the issue.
BARTLEBEE
(Hint: When wiki told you it was a NON BELIEF that God exists, thats another way of saying a BELIEF that GOD does not exist)
Once again, please take a logic course. Just because A -> B does not automatically mean B -> A or !A -> !B
November 29th, 2007 at 4:44 pmI appreciate you standing by what you said, Bartlebee, but you ignored the rest of my statement. I acknowledged that i took what you wrote to mean the generic "atheist" wher eyou may have meant "an Atheist zealot", not intending to claim that being an atheist was the same thing as being a fanatic.
Is that in fact what you meant? Because most of what you've written since seems to align with my original take -- that you consider atheists by definition to be fanatics.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:44 pmYou can disbelieve the data to be sure, but to just rule out the existence of a greater power that may have a role in all of this is to me foolish.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
OK, so maybe we can create a hypothesis that the Big Bang was actually God sneezing. That would mean everything in the universe, including us, the Snot of God. =)
Though, as this is still a hypothesis and not yet proven, it cannot be stated as a fact.
Hey this is fun, we could create a new religion, the Church of the Snot of God, and it would have as much factual basis as any other church.
ok, adding the /snark tag =)
November 29th, 2007 at 4:45 pmBullsh$t.
The very idea of an absentee God asserts there would be no scientific tests to identify it.
We believe in multiple dimensions. Entire schools of thought are dedicated to it. Yet we can provide no test, scientific or otherwise, to prove these theories.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
BAHAHA, what a STUPID comment.
Actually we have THEORIES of multiple dimensions, which have MATHEMATICAL EQUATIONS designed to test for and validate this. Until specific experiments exist to test this theory however, it's just that a THEORY - just like your god. The difference is that the MATH shows multiple dimensions, whereas only your imagination shows god.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:45 pmThe message is mixed above, but most of it appears to be that Huckabee is unfit for office because he is a Christian.
Comment by cold_hard_left
No, the message above is not mixed. Huckabee is unfit for office because he is a nutjob.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:45 pmReligion tends to be the most intolerant. I don’t care what fairy tales you believe, but keep it to yourself, and STFU when it comes to government running based on your fairy tales.
Comment by republicans hate facts — November 29, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
I disagree. Religion is not intolerant. Abstract concepts cannot be intolerant.
People, on the other hand, are intolerant, and they often use religion as an outlet for their intolerance.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:45 pmHey, I don’t care if you’re on a computer, no using binary to further confuse the issue.
Comment by Squegeeboo — November 29, 2007 @ 4:44 pm
It's all perspective, that's all I'm saying :)
November 29th, 2007 at 4:47 pmI disagree. Religion is not intolerant. Abstract concepts cannot be intolerant.
People, on the other hand, are intolerant, and they often use religion as an outlet for their intolerance.
Comment by toasterhead — November 29, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
Religion is a codification of conceptual dogma (concepts) - and yes it can be intolerant. Including explicit calls for eradicating other religions - a common concept in most popular religions.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:47 pmI will tell you one more time genius, and if you don’t get it then I’ll assume you’re as braindead and dishonest as the trolls you bash in here.
I do not “BELIEVE†God exists or doesn’t exist. I have stated it in this thread (if you could read) many times that I do not have a belief one way or another.
Which part of my comments do you not understand?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 4:46 pm
If you don't believe god exists, then why are you bashing atheists? Sorry, but that makes your comments dishonest.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:48 pmReligion is not intolerant. Abstract concepts cannot be intolerant.
People, on the other hand, are intolerant, and they often use religion as an outlet for their intolerance.
Comment by toasterhead — November 29, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
Excellent point.
Religion tends to give people justifications for their own intolerance, but that's a consequence of a human construct.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:48 pmi'm declaring war on religion.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:49 pmTHe problem is neither religiousity nor atheism. The problem is intolerance. An intolerant atheist is just as capable of persecuting as an intolerant Catholic.
Comment by Chesire11 — November 29, 2007 @ 4:40 pm
Atheism can be intolerant of religions, but I defy you to show me an example of an atheist who has murdered a believer because of their belief, while examples of the opposite are ubiquitous.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:49 pmWhich part of these comments eludes you?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
This one.
You can disbelieve the data to be sure, but to just rule out the existence of a greater power that may have a role in all of this is to me foolish. Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
I will rule out everything as unfounded theories that isn't proven. If you prove to me there is a god scientifically, I'll believe it. Until then, your belief is a fairy tale theory.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:50 pm….tap tap tap…… is this thing on…..?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
Good question, because you keep contradicting yourself.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:50 pmReligion is a codification of conceptual dogma (concepts) - and yes it can be intolerant. Including explicit calls for eradicating other religions - a common concept in most popular religions.
Comment by republicans hate facts — November 29, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
Fair enough, but who writes that dogma? Who writes those holy books that call for eradicating of other religions? People. Generally people in power, who want to stay in power.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:50 pmSee, as I said RHF, you’re a fanatic.
You’re so blinded by your fanatical zeal to disprove the existence of God, you can’t even read the posts you’re responding to.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
I'm a fanatic because I won't believe something with no basis in science, ration or reason? BAHAHA, you're a moron.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:51 pmFair enough, but who writes that dogma? Who writes those holy books that call for eradicating of other religions? People. Generally people in power, who want to stay in power.
Comment by toasterhead — November 29, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
And that by nature is what religion is... And my point.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:51 pmi’m declaring war on religion.
Comment by LividLib
i'm getting religion on war.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:52 pmYour zealous and fanatical passion to defeat anyone in here, has blinded you to every single one of my comments.
I suggest you calm down, do another bong hit, and scoll up to reread the comments of mine that you have been misrepresenting since you began.
I spelled it out in black and white, and even Toastmaster tried to help you.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
Oh, STFU you religious idiotic POS. Why don't you CALM DOWN and stop acting like a complete moron.
The reality is that science and rational thought is built on what can be tested and validated. You coming up with a concept that can't be tested (a creation god) is just pure fantasy. When you can test this, come back and talk to me, and I'm happy to reconsider my stance (hardly the stance of a fanatic), until then, stop being a moron.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:53 pmI spelled it out in black and white, and even Toastmaster tried to help you.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
I don't need your help, but clearly you need mine!
November 29th, 2007 at 4:54 pmSee, as I said RHF, you’re a fanatic.
You’re so blinded by your fanatical zeal to disprove the existence of God, you can’t even read the posts you’re responding to.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
I don't know Bartlebee, you've lost me in this thread. I seems to me you have written circles around yourself. I'm glad you understand what your getting at and I will continue to enjoy your posts on other threads but this has gotten out of hand.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:54 pmUntil specific experiments exist to test this theory however, it’s just that a THEORY - just like your god.
Comment by republicans hate facts — November 29, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
This is "nit-picking" but gods are hypothetical rather than theoretical. A theory is a hypothesis that can be established, as true or false, through experimentation. So far as I know no one has developed a method to test the viability of various "divine hypotheses".
Also, once again, atheism is the absence of belief. Not a belief system. One could argue the point till Jesus returns and won't change that fact. Asserting that atheism is a belief system is ignorant, narrow minded, and demonstrably wrong.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:54 pmNo.
You’re a fanatic because like a rabid foaming lunatic you sat here for the last hour arguing with your own strawmen because your overzealous fanaticism to disprove the existence of God overshadowed your ability to READ.
Thats why you’re a fanatic.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 4:53 pm
Actually, you're a fanatic because like a rabid foaming lunatic you sat here for the last half hour arguing with your own strawman because your overzealous fanaticism to prove the existence of God overshadowed your ablity to READ.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:55 pmThat's why you're a fanatic.
See, as I said RHF, you’re a fanatic.
You’re so blinded by your fanatical zeal to disprove the existence of God, you can’t even read the posts you’re responding to.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
Talk about a strawman. Burning Man, even.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:58 pmLibs, keep your mouth off of Governor Huckabee.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
No one here wants to put their mouths on Huckabee, we will leave that to you Daryll.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:59 pmBut, I thought you claimed you were not gay, what are you doing with your mouth on Huckabee?
Science is a method of studying and understanding the workings of the physical universe. As such, questions of whether or not God exists beyond the limits of that universe cannot be answered scientifically any more than questions of whether the earth orbits the sun can be answered by consulting scripture or oracles.
A person may reasonably choose to speculate as to the existence of God or not. What he cannot do is assert scientific support for his belief. The man who asserts that God does not exist is no more rational than the man who believes, he is simply more cautious.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:59 pmLibs, keep your mouth off of Governor Huckabee. He is God’s child, whom has a prophetic ministry. This is the man that I want to lead my country.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
Daryll my man, is your new found interest in Huckabee at all related to the alledged advancement of his campaign? I can't remember you having much to say about this nobody in the past. If he fails to win the nomination will you take it that God doesn't dig him or will you just shift gears and explain it away as the will of God?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:00 pmI wondered when Daryll would show up. And this thread isn't even about gays.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:00 pmAFFIRMS THE NON EXISTENCE OF GODS.
Aethists “believe†in the non existence of Gods.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
affirm is not the same as believe.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:00 pmI wondered when Daryll would show up. And this thread isn’t even about gays.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — November 29, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
daryll wants his mouth, and his mouth only, on Huckabee.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:01 pmWhat he cannot do is assert scientific support for his belief. The man who asserts that God does not exist is no more rational than the man who believes, he is simply more cautious.
Comment by Chesire11 — November 29, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
Hmmm. Sounds wrong.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:02 pmdaryll wants his mouth, and his mouth only, on Huckabee.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — November 29, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
I see. So, in his own way, Daryll made this thread about gays.
He's good.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:02 pmHebrews 11
1Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. 2This is what the ancients were commended for.
3By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. 4By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead.
5By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. 6And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:03 pmSo you often “affirm†things you don’t “believe†do you?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:02 pm
Affirming them makes them facts, not beliefs. Wordsmith.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:04 pmLiberals, there is nothing wrong with being psyched about Jesus! Didn’t he die on the cross for you? Didn’t he wake you up this morning?
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
Sorry, but wingnuts like you are PSYCHO'd not PSYCHED! You hateful stupid zealot.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:05 pmLiberals, there is nothing wrong with being psyched about Jesus! Didn’t he die on the cross for you? Didn’t he wake you up this morning?
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
Um, no, and no.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:05 pmReally Wordsmith?
So you often “affirm†things you don’t “believe†do you?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:02 pm
The word "believe" actually comes from the Proto-Indo-European base "leubh" meaning "to like or desire." It's the same root that produced the word "love."
Food for thought.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:05 pmIt might give you a hint as to why you keep losing elections.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
Thanks for '06.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:05 pmMaybe all you “progressives†should take a long hard look at this anti Christian and Religious rhetoric you’re constantly selling in here.
It might give you a hint as to why you keep losing elections.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
Oh STFU you STUPID REPUBLICAN TROLL (why YOU keep losing elections?) What Progressive would EVER say that? You're a MORON!!!!
I have no problem with you being as IGNORANT and FOOLISH and ZEALOT as you like in your own personal life. But for you to dare say anyone that points out what a moron you are when you try to shove your ignorance on others is a 'zealot', is just plain old 'tarded! Just do yourself a favor and STFU bart.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:06 pmDaryll is a little like Johnny from Airplane! he wanders into a serious philosophical discussion (okay, with a few gratuitous insults thrown in) and giggles that he can make a hat out of a flight chart.
Thanks, Daryll! You keep at trying to save us "filthy liberals"! We get an enormous kick out of it!
November 29th, 2007 at 5:07 pmMaybe all you “progressives†should take a long hard look at this anti Christian and Religious rhetoric you’re constantly selling in here.
It might give you a hint as to why you keep losing elections.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
Well, perhaps you might want to take a similar look; it might give you a hint as to why we're losing our country.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:08 pmoh thats brilliant opie. Just copy what I say and say “nuh uh, its youâ€. Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
Yeah, it's called PROJECTON - zealot.
Well I’m not the idiot who sat here for the last hour inventing strawmen jackass, you were. Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
Science isn't a strawman, but being convenient to believe something that CAN'T be proven is one.
You’re the one that insisted my comments meant I believed in God, and argued with yourself over it for the last hour. Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
Uh, maybe because that's what your comment says - dum bass?
I’ve been consitent and unchanging in my statements on this subject in this thread, and everythread I’ve been in for the last 2 years where the subject was discussed. Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
Bullsh*t.
So your “I know you are but what am I †defense just makes you look that much more stupid.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
More projection.
When you can PROVE there's a god, come back and talk to us. Until then, your BELIEF that there is one is just zealot stupidity.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:08 pmBARTLEBEE
Dude, still waiting on an answer on this simple question(or at least I think I am, I may have missed your response, if so, can you throw a comment # at me?)
Religion requires a belief in what can not be proven
Atheism requires a disbelief in that which has yet to be proven
Do you understand the difference inherent in those two lines?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:09 pmI have recently (a few months ago) done alot of research about Governor Huckabee. I have been distraught with the current Republican candidates, but the Governor has energized me. I am trying to persuade colleagues, family and friends to vote for the Governor. He is a man after God’s own heart. I want a President that will restore traditionalism within our society. Governor Huckabee (or should I say President-elect) is the man for the job.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
He's a religious whack job, of course you're excited about him.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:09 pmComment by toasterhead — November 29, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
In New Testament Greek the base word for believe is "eis," which means "..to trust in."
November 29th, 2007 at 5:09 pmLiberals, there is nothing wrong with being psyched about Jesus! Didn’t he die on the cross for you? Didn’t he wake you up this morning?
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
Steve Inskeep woke me up this morning, actually. And what he died on the cross for is open to interpretation. The Jesus I believe in is not the vindictive jerk being peddled by the likes of you and Mike Huckabee.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:09 pmFrom WEBSTERS:
AFFIRM: validate, confirm b: to state positively
2: to assert (as a judgment or decree) as valid or confirmed
3: to express dedication to
intransitive verb
1: to testify or declare by affirmation as distinguished from swearing an oath
2: to uphold a judgment or decree of a lower court
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
I didn't see anything about "belief" in there. Could you point it out for me?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:10 pm3: to express dedication to
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
People often express dedication to things they don't believe in - think marriages. Moron.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:10 pmSo Bartlebee, are you defending Huckabee or just hijacking the thread?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:10 pmLet me guess, you are an atheist?
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
let me guess, you're an evangelical 6000 year old flat earth believing MORON!
November 29th, 2007 at 5:10 pmSo Bartlebee, are you defending Huckabee or just hijacking the thread?
Comment by Shayne — November 29, 2007 @ 5:10 pm
He's being an idiot.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:10 pmThe bible and Rome proves that this occured.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:10 pm
ROTFL. And YOU claim to be a SCIENTIST? You're an idiot.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:11 pmYou’re a f#$@king moron.
A real stupid dolt.
I’ve told you time and time again I don’t believe in a God jackass, and yet you sit here like an inbred neocon troll, arguing with yourself instead of me and anything that I’ve stated.
You wanna make my positions for me dickhead?
Then argue with yourself.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:11 pm
And you've repeatedly said that people that don't believe in the existence of god are zealots. You're a dickhead idiot.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:11 pmLet me guess, you are an atheist?
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
Only if he's smarter than you.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:12 pmThe bible and Rome proves that this occured.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:10 pm
Rome also collapsed right after it accepted Christianity. So much for the power of that god of yours!
November 29th, 2007 at 5:12 pmI want a President that will restore traditionalism within our society. Governor Huckabee (or should I say President-elect) is the man for the job.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
Since the LAST evangelical in the office failed so miserably at it?
And no, you shouldn't say "President-Elect Huckabee", since that title is reserved for the winner of the presidential election (if it's not an incumbent).
November 29th, 2007 at 5:12 pmThe bible and Rome proves that this occured.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:10 pm
I'm afraid not. Rome didn't call me this morning, and the bible is a great work of fiction, especially all of the sex.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:13 pmrepublicans hate facts
And you’ve repeatedly said that people that don’t believe in the existence of god are zealots. You’re a dickhead idiot.
He has said both those who believe and disbelieve in god(s) are zealots. He has also said that he doesn't believe either way. I believe that makes him an agnostic.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:13 pmI am trying to persuade you to come to Jesus before the rapture.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
How many seats are left on the rapture bus, Dingbat? And where in the Bible is that particular trip mentioned?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:14 pmHi Darry l am no atheist just agnostic. Can you help me out. Is your faith better than someone else's? How does that work?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:14 pmMy comments are not meant to be satirical. I am trying to persuade you to come to Jesus before the rapture.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
Yet they remain so 'tarded that they seem to be satirical! That would tell a 'smart' person something about how extreme and stupid they were. Obviously you haven't gotten the message yet.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:14 pmI believe that makes him an agnostic.
Comment by Squegeeboo — November 29, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
Agnostics are zealots.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:14 pmI’m defending myself from idiots who are inventing positions for me and then slandering me with them.
I suggest reading my comments to discover their intent. I’ve said the same thing over and over and over.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
You're the one that posted that someone that doesn't believe in something that isn't scientifically proven is a zealot. You invented the position - and then whined when people creamed you over it. Grow up bart.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:15 pmMy comments are not meant to be satirical. I am trying to persuade you to come to Jesus before the rapture.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
We know. It's your earnestness that makes you so hilarious. If you were being satirical, you wouldn't be half as funny.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:15 pmAnd no, you shouldn’t say “President-Elect Huckabeeâ€, since that title is reserved for the winner of the presidential election (if it’s not an incumbent).
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — November 29, 2007 @ 5:12 pm
Please, please, please, run Huckabee! That would be really fun.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:16 pmLefty Patriot
Agnostics are zealots.
Well played.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:16 pmI want a Jesus alarm clock. Does it have a bleeding heart that lights up, Daryll?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:16 pmAgnostics are zealots.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — November 29, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
Given the convincing case put forward by Bartlebee, I don't see how one could argue this.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:17 pmTo all of the scientist out there, please explain the theory of matter not being able to be created or destroyed. If it can’t be created or destroyed, how did it get to be?
Comment by Southern Man — November 29, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
To all of the religious people out there, who created god?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:17 pmWhy don’t you kiss my a$$?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
I would, but your head is in the way...
November 29th, 2007 at 5:17 pmRalph, yes, I will use the term President-Elect because God wants a man of his stature to lead us. It is probably his will that the Governor become President. I refuse to have satan (Hillary Clinton) take over the White House.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
The biblical warning of the blind leading the blind always comes to mind when I see Republican politicians...
November 29th, 2007 at 5:18 pmrepublicans hate facts
To all of the religious people out there, who created god?
Could God microwave a burrito so hot, that even he could not pick it up with out oven mitts, or some other device to stop his hands from being burnt?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:18 pmComment by Southern Man — November 29, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
Probably one of those funky Hindu Gods
November 29th, 2007 at 5:18 pmYou’re a liar.
Show me where I said that.
I said people who call themseves ATHEISTS are as fanatical as the nutjobs like Huckleberry.
And your rabid tirade in here tonight, coupled with your foaming at the mouth lunatic rants which prohibited you from ever reading or considering my position, has proven that fact.
Thanks.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
There, you said it again. You're a moron.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:19 pmRalph, yes, I will use the term President-Elect because God wants a man of his stature to lead us. It is probably his will that the Governor become President. I refuse to have satan (Hillary Clinton) take over the White House.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
You are confusing, Daryll. You capitalize Governor and yet fail to capitalize "His" will or "Satan". And then you claim that this 60 year old woman from Illinois is "satan".
When will you start making sense?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:19 pmRalph, yes, I will use the term President-Elect because God wants a man of his stature to lead us. It is probably his will that the Governor become President. I refuse to have satan (Hillary Clinton) take over the White House.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
Your God has really poor taste in cover bands.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:20 pmI refuse to have satan (Hillary Clinton) take over the White House.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
So what will you do if this happens?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:20 pmThis thread has been like a traffic accident.
Weirdly compelling, ugly, and hard to turn away from.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:20 pmReligion tends to be the most intolerant. I don’t care what fairy tales you believe, but keep it to yourself, and STFU when it comes to government running based on your fairy tales.
Who says Americans don't do irony?
Let's get a few facts straight:
1. I have absolutely no interest in imposing my religious beliefs on you, on our government or on anybody else for that matter.
2. I also have absolutely no interest in yielding to you my right to speak freely about whatever I want, wherever I want and whenever I want. If you don't like it, then I suggest you master your impulse to censorship and instead read something else.
3. The records of atheist regimes like Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany and Communist China are soaked in the blood of millions and are guilty of murder on scales impossible in previous centuries.
4. Many wars have been fought and many killed in the name of religion, but by far more people have been slaughtered in the name of capitalism, greed, racism and territorial expansion. Oftentimes, religion has been exploited to justify the killing, but do you seriously suggest that human history would have been substantially less bloody without religion? Most people find competition over material things like land, wealth and dwindling resources are far more immediate and compelling reasons to gut their neighbors than questions of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin!
November 29th, 2007 at 5:20 pmHow are you able to make fun of our Lord and Savior, Jesus after all that he has done for you?
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
I'm not making fun of Jesus, Daryll. I'm making fun of you.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:20 pmCould God microwave a burrito so hot, that even he could not pick it up with out oven mitts, or some other device to stop his hands from being burnt?
Comment by Squegeeboo — November 29, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
If god didn't want himself to be found, and known his existence (Bart's claim) why would he bother to send down a physical son to tell everyone all of the details? If god did want everyone to know he was there, why'd he wait 15 BILLION years after the big bang to create beings capable of knowing he was here? And if we're so important, why are we on some insignificant planet in an insignificant galaxy in the middle of a vast universe? Did god need to create an entire universe, just to have us?
Sorry, but the wingnuts are morons.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:22 pmRalph, yes, I will use the term President-Elect because God wants a man of his stature to lead us. It is probably his will that the Governor become President. I refuse to have satan (Hillary Clinton) take over the White House.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
Daryll, either you misunderstand, or you're prone to wishful thinking. The term "President-Elect" has a strict use. It is to be applied between election day and inauguration day when the White House is to change hands. We are not within that period, therefore the term is inappropriate. May I suggest something to make you sound a little less retarded that would still convey the sense of misplaced optimisim you feel? How about "The next president of the United States!"
And it will be interesting to read your explanation a year from now if "satan" (Hillary Clinton) wins the presidency. Will that mean that God DIDN'T want a "man of stature" to lead us? Or will it mean that God sees Hillary Clinton as "a man of stature" and not as "satan"?
Only time will tell.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:23 pmThis question should not be answered, but hell is consisted of fire and brimstone that is 10 times hotter than lava.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:22 pm
Hell is the city dump outside of Jerusalem where people that didn't follow Leviticus were sent...
November 29th, 2007 at 5:23 pmComment by Southern Man — November 29, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
Mass can be converted to energy and vicey versee. No "creation" necessary.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:23 pmHow are you able to make fun of our Lord and Savior, Jesus after all that he has done for you?
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
The Jesus I believe in has a sense of humor.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:24 pmNo, it collapsed because of corruption and no belief in the goverment system. They tried to salvage it with Christianity, but the damage was done. Nice try though.
Comment by Southern Man — November 29, 2007 @ 5:22 pm
The empire was quite strong when they adopted Christianity, as strong as it had been for centuries, and no more corrupt. Yet within 150 years of this 'salvaging', it completely collapsed...
Sorry, 'tard, but history contradicts those beliefs of yours! And Christianity is SO STRONG, why couldn't it save Rome as Daryll claimed?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:24 pmDaryll
This question should not be answered, but hell is consisted of fire and brimstone that is 10 times hotter than lava.
Did I just break your Magic-Eight ball, Bible edition or something?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:24 pmTo all of the religious people out there, who created god?
Comment by republicans hate facts — November 29, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
Oh pick me, pick me. Can I answer. Oh, you are asking religious people. I'm just some fanatic but I'll answer anyway because I want to be a stubborn ass.
The answer is - MAN
Oh and Southern Man, All the matter in the universe emanated from a a single point, before that is what this whole 'debate' is about. We have not found any means by which to know how all this matter came to a single point - Hey, perhaps the single point is God and that means that God is everything. We have no way of knowing which frustrates everyone but most especially those who want to believe in a personnel God.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:25 pmTo all of the scientist out there, please explain the theory of matter not being able to be created or destroyed. If it can’t be created or destroyed, how did it get to be?
theory, wingnut. It's a theory. like god.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:25 pmThis question should not be answered, but hell is consisted of fire and brimstone that is 10 times hotter than lava.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:22 pm
Where'd you get the thermometer? That seems pretty hot. Should whomever collected this data have been injured in someway?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:25 pmLiberals, there is nothing wrong with being psyched about Jesus! Didn’t he die on the cross for you? Didn’t he wake you up this morning?
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
But Daryll there is something wrong with being psychotic about Jesus. You need to take your meds. The lack of homosexual thread has your nerves on edge.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:26 pmI see two sides. On the one hand theres the religious zealot crowd. Those who believe they have the defininite answers on everything thanks to their particular sect or order. Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
And that's why you're a MORON. If there were PROOF of a god and the atheists didn't believe it - then they'd be zealots. Much like the creationist morons.
We see BOTH sides as FANATICS, blinded by their own fanatical and unweilding belief systems. Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
And that's why you're a fool.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:26 pmYeah, bartlebee, we're slow.
We're not making fun of you or anything. Right.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:26 pmThanks guys, you are doing an absolutely wonderful job of why Atheistism is based on science and fact, not ancient superstition. Very nice read, although I really have to wonder now about Bart ability to see thru it all.
Good job.
Buck Fush
November 29th, 2007 at 5:26 pmI ask a question and of course you answer with a question. Must be projection. Go play with your dolls.
Comment by Southern Man — November 29, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
Ah, poor little southern girl! Too stupid to see what a joke you are! Go play with your own dolls, closet case.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:27 pmIt will not because a few brethren (from my church) and I will fast for a week before the 2008 election. We are praying that God intercede and ensure that she doesn’t win.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
Your God works for Diebold?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:27 pmSo what will you do if this happens?
Comment by dbadass — November 29, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
It will not because a few brethren (from my church) and I will fast for a week before the 2008 election. We are praying that God intercede and ensure that she doesn’t win.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
Daryll is on FIRE today! Comedy gold!!!
November 29th, 2007 at 5:27 pmThis question should not be answered, but hell is consisted of fire and brimstone that is 10 times hotter than lava.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:22 pm
10 times? Are you sure? What if it's 11 times? Why are you placing limits on eternal damnation, anyway? It could be a billion times hotter than lava. If you're going to make this stuff up, at least use a little imagination.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:28 pmIt will not because a few brethren (from my church) and I will fast for a week before the 2008 election. We are praying that God intercede and ensure that she doesn’t win.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
Excellent idea. Would you consider a blog of your own so we can all follow you and your buddies in this endeavor. Now since you know it will not can you assure me the same of a Huckabee presidency?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:28 pmNo, I will use the term President-Elect because the Governor is your next President, in Jesus name. The battle has already been one.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:27 pm
But if you were following Jesus, you'd behave entirely differently, so why do you blaspheme? You really are doomed for that HELL of yours, son!
November 29th, 2007 at 5:28 pmNo, I will use the term President-Elect because the Governor is your next President, in Jesus name. The battle has already been one.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:27 pm
"One"?
Get back to us if Huckabee even gets the nomination, Daryll.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:29 pmNo, I will use the term President-Elect because the Governor is your next President, in Jesus name. The battle has already been one.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:27 pm
Oy. Where do I start?
Maybe better leave it alone. Sounds like Daryll could use some "quiet time".
November 29th, 2007 at 5:30 pmI ask a question and of course you answer with a question. Must be projection. Go play with your dolls.
Comment by Southern Man — November 29, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
Hey guy I answered your question awhile ago. It was one of those funky Hindu Gods!
November 29th, 2007 at 5:30 pmI’ll just sit back, and watch the two of you kill each other.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:28 pm
I'm curious, and foolish to even ask, but does this mean that you pretty much define what a real progressive is?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:30 pmMan, something is going seriously wrong today if I have that many comments in the recommended section. Oh well, I'm out for at least the next hour, if I'm not back, have a great night.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:30 pmI refuse to have satan (Hillary Clinton) take over the White House.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
And yet Satan Bush is still in the White House.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:31 pmThe battle has already been one.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:27 pm
It's always war with you people, isn't it... Everything's a battle or a war or a fight.
Whatever happened to the Jesus who told us to love our enemies and turn the other cheek and beat our swords into ploughshares?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:32 pmI suggest reading my comments to discover their intent. I’ve said the same thing over and over and over.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
I've read them Bartlebee. You deny believing in god while acting like you are the all knowing center of the universe.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:33 pmI ask a question and of course you answer with a question. Must be projection. Go play with your dolls.
Comment by Southern Man — November 29, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
You mean you really wanted an answer? So you asked that particular question on a political blog because you figured it was packed with quantum physicists?
Amazing.
Here, read this book and then you can explain it to the rest of us.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:34 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
You are basing your BELIEF on some misconceptions. We have tried to inform you of your mistake yet you can't, or won't, see it. Maybe you just got a hold of a poor definition of "atheist". Maybe you just feel a need to elevate yourself to a position of supreme authority. Maybe you got the crap kicked out of you by an atheist. Whatever the reason, your contention that:
On the other hand theres the Atheists, who ferverently believe that there is no God or deities, and work passionately as you’ve seen here tonight, to disprove and ridicule those who’s views differ.
is wrong. Period!
November 29th, 2007 at 5:34 pmI’ve read them Bartlebee. You deny believing in god while acting like you are the all knowing center of the universe.
Comment by Shayne — November 29, 2007 @ 5:33 pm
He's just playing double devil's advocate (excuse the term), that's all.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:37 pmTo all of the scientist out there, please explain the theory of matter not being able to be created or destroyed. If it can’t be created or destroyed, how did it get to be?
Comment by Southern Man — November 29, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
Could somebody throw a fossil at Southern Man's head and try to knock some sense into him. And for all of you tempted to explain physics to him, please keep in mind it's "Southern Man". If it's not in the bible he's not buying it.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:38 pmand we don’t wanna hear the rabid lunacy on the other side, desperately trying to convince us there is no God.
No. Wrong. You don't wanna hear that the atheist 'side' wants the religious 'side' to wake up to the lunacy of believing that ANYONE, ANYWHERE at ANYTIME has every heard directly from God.
Shit man, it's called reason. You call atheists fanatic because atheists just can't understand how religious people can be so unreasonable.
Is it reasonable that stories about Jesus didn't get written until years after he died?
Is it reasonable to believe stories written thousands of years ago to be Word of God?
Is it reasonable to believe that the Earth was flooded by 40 days and nights of rain?
Is it reasonable to disown your own child because he/she doesn't believe in Mormonism?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:38 pmOh God gummitch not you too?
Where did I suggest that?
Where did I even imply that?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
That does sound like you know what it means and the rest of us don't.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:38 pmI simply pointed out that these so called “progressives†are not too progressive when showing religious tolerance in a country that was built on relgious tolerance.
I also pointed out, that you’re driving off millions of potential votes by driving off good people who believe in God.
Do you honestly think some nice, decent person that believes in God but doesn’t believe in Bush and his crimes, is going to feel comfortable or the least bit welcome in this sh$t?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
You're so full of shit, it is amazing. Your defensiveness is markedly indicative of your knowledge of how wrong you are.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:38 pmRalph, yes, I will use the term President-Elect because God wants a man of his stature to lead us. It is probably his will that the Governor become President. I refuse to have satan (Hillary Clinton) take over the White House.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
Oh great, now Daryll thinks he's god. I thought that was Bartlebee's job.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:39 pmIt wasn’t Christians and a society with a lack of morals, it was a combination of events. You are getting cuter everyday little guy.
Comment by Southern Man — November 29, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
And you get better at avoiding the point every time you get smacked down. Good boy!
November 29th, 2007 at 5:39 pmTo all of the religious people out there, who created god?
A very interesting question you pose - too bad you're too closed minded and intolerant (not to mention boorish! Are you sure you're not a Repugnican?) to engage in conversation about the matter. Personally, I like to learn about and try to understand other peoples' points of view - especially those with which I disagree.
Oh well, it's more your loss than it is mine.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:40 pmHow could I be acting like one then?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
He said acting like one, not being one. Are you Southern Man in disguise?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:42 pmNo wonder we lose elections. Most of you guys probably just stay home.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:42 pm
You'll be running out of straw if you keep building the same guy each time.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:43 pmNo. Wrong. You don’t wanna hear that the atheist ’side’ wants the religious ’side’ to wake up to the lunacy of believing that ANYONE, ANYWHERE at ANYTIME has every heard directly from God.
Shit man, it’s called reason. You call atheists fanatic because atheists just can’t understand how religious people can be so unreasonable.
Comment by Nature Rules — November 29, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
I think the problem is the division of people into two camps - you're either fully religious, believing that the Bible is the literal truth, or you're fully atheist, believing that religion is of all types are lunacy.
There's a wide spectrum in between these two, and I believe it's possible to find a middle ground. Science is based in reason. Religion is based in love. It's a comparison between apples and catalytic convertors.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:44 pmHow can you call a man of God satan.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
Bush? a man of god? You don't read much, do you, daryll? bush, the mass-murdering, coke-snorting, drunken deserter? man of god? good luck with that.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:45 pmI am not God. God speaks to me through dreams.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
Well, that explains why you're so confused. Daryll, they are DREAMS. Even you call them dreams. Seek professional help.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:45 pmHere are you atheists, in here rabidly attacking someone who’s stood along side you for 2 years now, because I dare to suggest that atheists are as fanatical as religious zealots.
And here you guys are, proving it.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:37 pm
This statement is closer than i would have thought to an accurate representation of the truth.
The reason you have drawn disagreement (or, "been attacked" if you like) is because you asserted more than once that "atheists are as fanatical as religious zealots".
It's a stupid statement. Had you qualified it, as someone suggested earlier in the following way: "Atheists CAN BE as fanatical as religious zealots" or "Some Atheists are as fanatical as religious zealots", you would have found a lot less conflict.
But that's not what you said, and it's not what you're saying now. You are saying that Atheists by definition are as fanatical as religious zealots.
And your contention that a disbelief in God is as irrational as a belief in one just doesn't make sense either. But as long as you can tell yourself that it's just Atheists attacking you because you dared to speak truth to their irrational belief system, then you won't hear anything else.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:46 pmI am not God. God speaks to me through dreams.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
Does God have an accent? What does your God think about all those other equally valid Gods? Does your God go bowling with them or anything like that?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:47 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:37 pm
No. I haven't "rabidly attacked" you. I sought to correct your false statements that "the atheists" are fanatic zealots. If you truly understood the subject you would realize that "the atheists" are not a unified group. They don't share a common belief, or disbelief, for that matter. There are, at least, as many different forms of "atheism" as there are religions.
To make statements, which group all atheists together, is wrong. It's inaccurate. It's false and, one can only assume, based on ignorance or a desire to elevate your enlightened agnosticism above all other philosophies.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:48 pmSuggesting that the “belief that there is no god†is based on absolutely the same thing the belief that there is one, is “acting like the all knowing center of the universe�
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
Not really. It's more acting like someone with a shaky grasp of language, abstract concepts and logic.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:48 pmIt’s a comparison between apples and catalytic convertors.
Comment by toasterhead — November 29, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
Ah but my catalytic converter can sap the energy out of your apple. :)
November 29th, 2007 at 5:49 pmHow can you call a man of God satan.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
Explain how George Bush is any more a "man of God" than Hillary Clinton? Aside from Hillary being a woman, I mean.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:50 pmHell is real!
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
got pictures? burns? anything?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:52 pmHell is real!
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
How do you know hell is real, Daryll? You ever been there?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:52 pmDaryll,
No hell, no God, if you decide that evidence matters, and reason wins out over faith (faith being nothing more than belief without reasons) then you will understnd this and be able to open up a larger world to yourself.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:52 pmDammit, Lefty Patriot! You beat me to it! And with a better comeback too!
November 29th, 2007 at 5:53 pmDaryll,
You said - "Hillary wants communism."
Can you show where she said this? Or are you one of those crazies that makes crap up to try to win an argument when you don't have facts on your side?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:54 pmBush is a traditionalist who believes in ruling this country by utilizing faith methods. Hillary wants communism.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
Oh. I see. You're a retard. That explains it.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:54 pmBush is a traditionalist who believes in ruling this country by utilizing faith methods. Hillary wants communism.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
so, Bush is a traditionalist in the same sense as Osama Bin Laden, is what you're saying. Well, we knew that.
Now, how do you know that Hillary wants communism? She's never actually said so.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:54 pmHell is real!
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
Yep. It can be found between your ears.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:54 pmDammit, Lefty Patriot! You beat me to it! And with a better comeback too!
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — November 29, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
Bart awakened my inner fanatical atheist.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:55 pmTo make statements, which group all atheists together, is wrong. It’s inaccurate. It’s false and, one can only assume, based on ignorance or a desire to elevate your enlightened agnosticism above all other philosophies.
Comment by pete — November 29, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
Bertlebee will never understand. . . . .
November 29th, 2007 at 5:55 pmBush is a traditionalist who believes in ruling this country by utilizing faith methods. Hillary wants communism.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
The tradition of the Puritans, maybe the terrorists who killed a king and fled to the New World on a religious zionist crusade.
That's not the tradition that the United States was built upon, though. The United States was built as a pluralistic society that accepted all faiths.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:56 pmToday she is appealing to the hard left to wrap up the nomination. Tomorrow, she pretends to be a moderate and goes after the moderate rights. She will claim to be a God feraring woman, but she won’t be able to pull it off like Bill did. She needs the people you despise in here to win. It will be fun to watch you when shae goes after the middle of the road crowd. The church going folk you turn off because of your contempt of their beliefs.
Comment by Southern Man — November 29, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
Judges? Translation, please?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:56 pmNow, how do you know that Hillary wants communism? She’s never actually said so.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — November 29, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
Came to him in one of those dreams!
November 29th, 2007 at 5:56 pmThe empire was quite strong when they adopted Christianity, as strong as it had been for centuries, and no more corrupt. Yet within 150 years of this ’salvaging’, it completely collapsed…
No, not really. The empire lacked the economic vitality and the political flexibility to govern a sprawling multiethnic empire under pressure from barbarian invasion (both peaceful and violent) at a time when communication was limited to the speed of a horse or a ship.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:57 pmBartlbee is right on when he says you are just a fanatical as the christian right. You are proving it in here.
Comment by Southern Man — November 29, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
The misconception you have here is that the debate is over religion vs atheism. Its not. Its about whether ALL religious people and ALL atheists are somehow fanatical.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:58 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
Stall 357 has run out of straw, more straw please!
No, not really. The empire lacked the economic vitality and the political flexibility to govern a sprawling multiethnic empire under pressure from barbarian invasion (both peaceful and violent) at a time when communication was limited to the speed of a horse or a ship.
Comment by Chesire11 — November 29, 2007 @ 5:57 pm
Again, you've missed the point. God did not save Rome.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:59 pmI am not God. God speaks to me through dreams.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
Daryll,
This is God. No really, I am serious as a heart attack this is your heavenly father speaking to you through this amazing "blog". I hope to my God that I created a spell checker because an infallible god fcking up the English language would be awkward, what?
Mellow out my child. I know you think I talk to you in your dreams, but that's just your uncle Rehofus having his way with you after the date drug kicks in. Have a little more faith in your fellow humans and less in some mythical creature.
Oh, and yes it's true, Bush is the AntiChrist.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:00 pmBartlbee is right on when he says you are just a fanatical as the christian right. You are proving it in here.
Comment by Southern Man — November 29, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
How would you know, having never been to church?
November 29th, 2007 at 6:00 pmShe needs the people you despise in here to win. It will be fun to watch you when shae goes after the middle of the road crowd. The church going folk you turn off because of your contempt of their beliefs.
Comment by Southern Man — November 29, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
The Evangelical/Christian Zionist wing of the electorate she'll never get to, and hopefully she won't try to reach them because it will only alienate her from the secularists. Not all church-going folk are of that extreme wing, however. Some of us do understand that.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:01 pmDo you honestly think some nice, decent person that believes in God but doesn’t believe in Bush and his crimes, is going to feel comfortable or the least bit welcome in this sh$t?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
But you are the one labeling all progressives as atheist thereby creating your own strawman and huge circle jerk at the same time as disrupting this thread.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:02 pmShe needs the people you despise in here to win. It will be fun to watch you when shae goes after the middle of the road crowd. The church going folk you turn off because of your contempt of their beliefs.
Comment by Southern Man — November 29, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
Only the republicans NEED the flat earthers to win. That's the funny part!
November 29th, 2007 at 6:02 pmShe supports a Universal Healthcare system and wants to over-tax the rich (even though they are paying 60% of Americans taxes).
So, she wants good health for all Americans, and she wants to tax the rich more in line with what they make. How commie!
She wants to create more Government programs that prevent self reliance.
Seems that Republicans have done that, for the rich. They are the Commies!
November 29th, 2007 at 6:02 pmDaryll sees the future? HE'S A WITCH! BURN HIM!!!
November 29th, 2007 at 6:02 pmDarryl
November 29th, 2007 at 6:03 pmIs your God against universal healthcare? yes or no or hasn't this come up yet in any of your dreams. I would tend to think yes but you must think no. So what's the Big Cheese's beef with this issue?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
Why do paint with such a broad brush? You're generalizations are what is upseting.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:03 pmDo you honestly think some nice, decent person that believes in God but doesn’t believe in Bush and his crimes, is going to feel comfortable or the least bit welcome in this sh$t?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
So your belief is that we should support the delusions of lunatics that believe the earth is 6000 years old? Do you believe that an atheist is going to feel the least bit welcome by the sh$t you spew? Why don't you do yourself a favor and STFU junior?
November 29th, 2007 at 6:03 pmShe supports a Universal Healthcare system and wants to over-tax the rich (even though they are paying 60% of Americans taxes). She wants to create more Government programs that prevent self reliance.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
Wouldn't Jesus want us to provide health care and social safety nets for the least among us?
November 29th, 2007 at 6:04 pmWouldn't He want the rich to pay Caesar what is due Caesar?
You’d have no such records to present to support your claims.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
Now you're just a fool.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:04 pmIn fact, if this case were called before a court of law, and both sides were instructed to demonstrate their case, you’d have nothing other than speculation and opinions. You’d have no credible physical evidence to prove the phiosohpy of the atheist.
On the other hand, the churches would have VOLUMES of information to present, including documented eyewitness testimonies, peripheral historical records offering supporting evidence as well as artifacts and the like.
You’d have no such records to present to support your claims.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
And if we accused you of pedophilia - could you prove that this behavior didn't exist? Should we ASSUME you are one, because you MIGHT be? Because that's EXACTLY what you expect atheists to do. To ASSUME that something exists without proof, without reason, and without substantiating facts - yet you call atheists zealots because they won't do this. You're a moron.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:05 pmBe religious all you want. Just don’t entertain the idea that it is your duty to limit my liberty to appease your god.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — November 29, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
November 29th, 2007 at 6:05 pmWell said.
Bartlebee,
Your argument has huge problems. I'll start with this nugget.
You said - "Had someone early on suggested agnosticism, then we could have toned it down. But no one did."
Are you agnostic or atheist in regards to Zues? Odin? Or any other of the thousands of Gods that have come before yours. Many of those who call themselves atheist, simply believe in one less God than you.
You said - "YOU cannot produce ANY SHRED of evidence as to the NON-existence of a God."
Nor can you produce ANY SHRED of evidence as to the NON-existence of Zues.
You said - "BOTH are empirical belief systems, one under the guise of non belief, and one under the guise of belief."
This is patently false and kinda dumb. Religious people are heralded for their faith, even in the face of all evidence that their faith is at the very least, questionable, if not totally misplaced. The more faith (Faith being belief without evidence) you have, the more revered you are in religious circles.
If one were to prove you wrong in the world of science, it's considered a penultimate moment. It's the way science works. If one even attempts to prove you wrong in religion, they get offended, they lean on faith, and the argument shuts down. Their is no room for argument when it comes to faith.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:05 pmShe supports a Universal Healthcare system and wants to over-tax the rich (even though they are paying 60% of Americans taxes). She wants to create more Government programs that prevent self reliance.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
Jesus gave free healthcare and free food to everyone that he encounter, sinner and saint alike. Why do you hate JESUS so much junior?
November 29th, 2007 at 6:05 pmNo I’m not.
You’re labeling me as labeling all progressives as atheist, thereby creating YOUR own strawman.
I said nothing of the sort.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 6:05 pm
You labeled atheists as zealots, and agnostics as reasonable people. You're a hypocrite and a fool.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:06 pmWell obviously I wasn’t including all persons ascribing to athesim. Didn’t you bother to read my responses to Wayne? I was addressing the fanatics in here, who in the two years I’ve been in here, have mocked, ridiculed and harrased every religious person dumb enough to open their mouths.
...
And actually, if you think about it, the religious crowds got you beat. At least from a legal standpoint.
YOU cannot produce ANY SHRED of evidence as to the NON-existence of a God.
They can introduce documented eyewitness testimony as well as supporting archialogical evidence to add credence to their theories.
:P
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
Well, obviously, it WASN'T obvious, since you never bothered to include the kinds of qualifiers suggested, and you continued to make statements that sounded very much like:
I said people who call themseves ATHEISTS are as fanatical as the nutjobs like Huckleberry.
No qualifiers in there. Pretty much a blanket condemnation of anyone who calls himself an Atheist.
And by the way, I'm not an Atheist, so your lame attempt to pigeonhole all of your critics falls flat. I've never attempted to produce ANY SHRED of evidence as to the NON-existence of God, and I never intend to. Mostly because it's an impossible task. just as impossible as proving that there IS a God. But that still doesn't mean that the two positions are mirror images of one another in the way you're trying to claim.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:06 pmBartlbee is right on when he says you are just a fanatical as the christian right. You are proving it in here.
Comment by Southern Man — November 29, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
And the opinion of an IDIOT like you is worth what? NOTHING! You're a fanatical freak, and you're proving in here daily!
November 29th, 2007 at 6:07 pmBartlebee,
You said - "You’d have no credible physical evidence to prove the phiosohpy of the atheist."
What is the philosophy of an atheist?
I see atheism as the reasonable assumption that those who propagate the idea of an all powerful creative force that controls all, have the burden of proof for their hypothesis, and thus far have failed meeting that burden.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:08 pmYou’d have no such records to present to support your claims.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
Now you’re just a fool.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — November 29, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
Barlebee has chosen to enter the world of the circular arguement. It is we who are the fools for attempting to reason with him/her.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:08 pmWatch what happens if Hillary gets the nod. Today she is appealing to the hard left to wrap up the nomination.
Comment by Southern Man — November 29, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
She is? She's doing a crap job of it, then, because the "hard left" pretty uniformly dislikes her.
Oh, wait, when you said "hard left" you meant "anyone to the left of Trent Lott". Never mind.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:08 pmAgain, you’ve missed the point. God did not save Rome.
Comment by Lefty Patriot
Actually, I didn't. The point being expressed was twofold:
1. Christianity fatally weakened a previously sound Roman Empire.
2. God didn't save Rome.
I responded to the first of the two points because it was so clearly specious and demonstrated the poster's poor grasp of history.
Since you insist however, I will respond to his second point.
No, God did not save Rome. I am also happy to report to you that He didn't butter my toast this morning. I'm just not sure what relevance either of those two true statements have to anything to do with proving or disproving His existence.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:09 pmWhy are you so anti-christian daryll, with your PUBLIC PRAYERS?
"And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room (or closet.) and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret..." (Matthew 6:5-6 RSV).
November 29th, 2007 at 6:09 pmYOU cannot produce ANY SHRED of evidence as to the NON-existence of a God.
or Babe, the Blue Ox, either, I would think.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:10 pmSuggesting that the “belief that there is no god†is based on absolutely the same thing the belief that there is one, is “acting like the all knowing center of the universe�
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
Proving the existence of something is not the same as proving the absence of something Bartlebee. And somebody could prove the existence of god to atheists scientifically they would believe. But if you could prove god does not exist to religious zealots it would not change their belief. Apathy to an issue which is what most atheists practice is not zealotry, no way no how.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:10 pmNo, God did not save Rome. I am also happy to report to you that He didn’t butter my toast this morning. I’m just not sure what relevance either of those two true statements have to anything to do with proving or disproving His existence.
Comment by Chesire11 — November 29, 2007 @ 6:09 pm
Yet the bible claims to bless those 'kingdoms' that follow him. Therefore this is evidence that's admissible.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:10 pmNo, God did not save Rome. I am also happy to report to you that He didn’t butter my toast this morning. I’m just not sure what relevance either of those two true statements have to anything to do with proving or disproving His existence.
Comment by Chesire11 — November 29, 2007 @ 6:09 pm
Daryll has a Jesus alarm clock, but he refuses to tell me where he got it. Maybe Jesus butters Daryll's toast, but I wouldn't count on getting him to butter yours for you.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:11 pmAccording to the Bible, Rudy is a big time sinner, being a cross dresser and all!
“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy Godâ€--Deuteronomy 22:5
November 29th, 2007 at 6:12 pmMaybe Jesus butters Daryll’s toast, but I wouldn’t count on getting him to butter yours for you.
Comment by gummitch — November 29, 2007 @ 6:11 pm
He might be willing to butter Cheshire's buns, if asked nicely.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:12 pmHere Bart we will use some logic for you - this is simple, follow along.
Religion says, The Bible is God's word.
God is supposed to be all knowing, because he is God.
If God is all knowing then how come the Bible has so many untruths in it?
If God is all knowing then it would have known that man would evolve and get smarter and more advanced and would discover the mistakes in the Bible.
There for the Bible is indeed not the word of God, but of man.
Man made up God. Just like man made up the Greek Gods, the Roman Gods, the Aztec Gods, etc. etc.
Therefore God is the imagination of man.
Simple logic.
Buck Fush
November 29th, 2007 at 6:12 pmDaryll, I mean.
Daryll might be willing to butter Cheshire's buns.
Sorry if that wasn't clear.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:13 pmThen we have all of those Republican wives that CLAIM to be Christians!
“...that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attireâ€--l Timothy 2:9 RSV
November 29th, 2007 at 6:13 pmHell is real!
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
All I know is that if I had to spend eternity in Heaven next to Daryll it would surely feel like Hell.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:15 pmYea thats it.
Take it down another notch jackass.
First, don’t associate me with your hobby. Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 6:12 pm
BAHAHA, says the RELIGIOUS person... Sure!!!
Second, its a far cry from just making something up, and believing in witness accounts recorded in ancient records, as well as the personal experiences reported by so many individuals. Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 6:12 pm
Witness accounts of WHAT? Written by WHOM? Yeah, I'm sure Noah was there to see the whole world flooded, that Adam was in the garden of eden, and eve ate that darned fruit! You're a moron!
These people believe for reasons what they believe. Right or wrong, its not your place to mock them. Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 6:12 pm
Why not? They YOU mock atheists?
This country was founded on relgious tolerance, originally at least. (the indians had their gods, we had ours). We came here to escape persecution from the mother church at England. Now you show that same religious intolerance in the form of your “anti-religion†and persecute anyone in here unlucky enough to express a belief in a deity while you’re in here. Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 6:12 pm
Actually the founding fathers EXPLICITLY listed ATHEISM as worthy of protection - you MORON!
I’ve seen you do it over and over. You mock those who’s beliefs differ from yours, but you’re a hypocrite. As hypocritical as any religious zealot ever was.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 6:12 pm
Says the wingnut that MOCKS atheists. You're a hypocrite, and a fool!
I also MOCK people that believe the earth is flat - does that make me wrong? Or just not as 'tarded as you are?
November 29th, 2007 at 6:16 pmSee the difference between you and me, is I’ve studied theology, and I’ve read the bible, many times over. I’ve studied the original scribe notes from the Codex Vaticanus. I’ve seen copies of the Chester Beatty papyrus. And I’ve studied the eastern gnostics, and read Farrar and examined the masoretic text.
I know something about this topic, and that to you constitutes that I must therefore be a religious person, and proceed to continue to ascribe that moniker to me, even though I point out time and time again, that I am not.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 6:15 pm
What an arrogant prick! How do you KNOW you've done something others that disagree with you HAVEN'T? You're a moron!
November 29th, 2007 at 6:16 pmThanks anyway ralph. I never liked toast, but I must confess my buns are to die for.
Thanks for noticing!
November 29th, 2007 at 6:19 pmI am not God. God speaks to me through dreams.
Comment by Daryll — November 29, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
Dreams or LSD?
November 29th, 2007 at 6:21 pmIt will be fun to watch you when shae goes after the middle of the road crowd. The church going folk you turn off because of your contempt of their beliefs.
Comment by Southern Man — November 29, 2007 @ 5:54 p
Well I know how open minded you neocons cosider yourselves to be but not all progressives are atheists and not all of us support Hillary either. As yet I haven't once seen her pander to the far left so I suspect that is also all in your mind. And since Evangelicals consider themselves the only real Christians all other denominations, like Catholics, are considered Gentiles and are welcome to join in the progressive movement.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:21 pmThe problem most of have with your argument, Bartlebee, is not that you're a religious person or not -- it's that you're making claims that are at odds with reason. Or else they're just really poorly expressed, which I doubt.
Now you're trying to demonstrate that because proving a negative is impossible, your position that atheists are just as fanatical as religious zealots is proved. It's a dumb argument and a dumb conclusion. It's been explained to you why that is, several times already. If you want to focus on what you see as attacks (and you've absolutely given as good as you've gotten in that department) instead of the actual problems that people are demonstrating for you, that's up to you.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:22 pmThanks anyway ralph. I never liked toast, but I must confess my buns are to die for.
Comment by Chesire11 — November 29, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
I have no doubt that's true.
Cheers.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:24 pmYes, I made it very simple, and did not try to cover all forms of religion, just one of that was easy for anyone to understand.
But now I see, that the other posters here are indeed correct, you are an idiot Bart and there is no reasoning with idiots.
Don't bother to reply, I won't bother reading it.
Buck Fush
November 29th, 2007 at 6:25 pmWas that really you CaptainMantastic? That was cogent and sensible. I may have to put you in a different box.
Well said.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:29 pm:|
Simple is certainly the word I’d use to describe that….uh…â€logicâ€.
Buddasim is a relgion. They don’t believe the bible is God’s word.
Lots of Christian denomitnations take a loose interpretation of biblical events and concepts. Many don’t believe Adam and Eve lived, or Job, or Noah.
So yes, “simple†was an excellent descriptor for that “logicâ€.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
Anyone that believes in adam and eve is a MORON, ESPECIALLY YOU! Evolution is a FACT, and adam and eve is nothing more than a stupid fairy tale believed by fools like you. So yeah SIMPLE LOGIC says you're SIMPLE MINDED!
November 29th, 2007 at 6:39 pmSimple logic says that "republicans hate facts" is emotionally unstable.
Dude, step away from the keyboard and get help - seriously.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:40 pm:|
Can someone explain to me why to this lunatic merely acknowledging the pesences of a belief system necessitates advocating it?
I’ve tried but this ones too thick.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 6:42 pm
Can someone explain to you why if you keep bringing up 'beliefs' as being something 'valid' when they're MORONIC, it means you're implicitly advocating it?
You're the thick one, and it's everyone else's fault you keep making a fool of yourself - right bart?
November 29th, 2007 at 6:43 pmIt seems this one is none too bright, which might explain why we’re always losing.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 6:43 pm
You keep saying that as if it were true.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:44 pmWhen you were reading all of those religious texts, did anyone bother to explain to you who Yahweh and Asherah were? or Mithra?
Because that 'Christian' religion is anything but novel, or even interesting when compared to other myths.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:44 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 6:42 pm
It's simple BART. You pissed him off. You pissed me off. You pissed a lot of people off.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:44 pmNot to mention how such statements must make the religious liberals who happen into this blog feel.
It seems this one is none too bright, which might explain why we’re always losing.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 6:43 pm
Says to f**king moron that called ALL ATHEISTS ZEALOTS.
So now it's WE'RE as opposed to YOU that slipped earlier? You're no PROGRESSIVE, and last time I checked we kicked @ss in 2006, and won the presidency in 2000 by 500,000 votes. So why don't you shove that republican b**sh*t mantra of yours up your @ss - moron! And JOIN REALITY!
November 29th, 2007 at 6:46 pmIt seems this one is none too bright, which might explain why we’re always losing.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 6:43 pm
You keep saying that as if it were true.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — November 29, 2007 @ 6:44 pm
It's obvious Bart is a Republican troll, posing as a liberal. He let the cat out of the bag today - little 'tard.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:47 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 6:42 pm
It’s simple BART. You pissed him off. You pissed me off. You pissed a lot of people off.
Comment by pete — November 29, 2007 @ 6:44 pm
Well to be fair, Bart is like the Greek unwashed masses that killed Socrates for saying no less that what I've said. The religious zealots were morons 2500 years ago, they're still morons today.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:49 pmYea?
What do you think calling religious people morons does to them?
Make them wanna be your friend? Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 6:52 pm
When those morons call one a zealot, how again do you have the high ground - MORON? And the truth is sometimes painful, like the truth that you're a hypocritical *ss.
:|
Well ok, some of them, the Quakers maybe, but the rest…..lol
Anyway I could care less if you guys are pissed off. I said nothing to piss you off, other than to denounce your fanatical attacks on the Christian left.
It disgust me the way you talk about those people, and it ought to disgust you.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 6:52 pm
You called ALL ATHEISTS ZEALOTS - and you did NOTHING to piss others off?
You're a LIAR and a FOOL and a FANATIC!
November 29th, 2007 at 6:54 pmOh, and ANYONE that believes in a LITERAL 6000 year old earth IS A MORON - they need to get used to that reality!
November 29th, 2007 at 6:55 pmAnyway I could care less if you guys are pissed off. I said nothing to piss you off, other than to denounce your fanatical attacks on the Christian left.
It disgust me the way you talk about those people, and it ought to disgust you.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 6:52 pm
More Straw! More Straw! Bart is building the world's biggest strawman!
or is he just lying?
November 29th, 2007 at 6:56 pmIt disgust me the way you talk about those people, and it ought to disgust you.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 6:52 pm
What DISGUSTS ME is your LYING and HYPOCRISY!
November 29th, 2007 at 6:56 pmHow does my adovcating tolerance for all belief systems and “non-belief†systems constitute my being like those who killed people for what they said?
You’re the one condemning Christians.
All I’ve done is demonstrate, and quite effectively I might add, that theres little difference between passionate atheists and passionate believers.
You both have what is called in the scientific community “an axe to grindâ€.
And that puts you both on the same level on my book. Try a little tolerance. You’ll find most Christians, decent ones anyway, will want to return it in kind.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 6:56 pm
You're a moron. YOU CALLED ALL ATHEISTS ZEALOTS, and you expect people to not point out what a fool you are?
NO, Christians are NOT TOLERATE OF ATHEISTS as YOU PROVE! And you GET WHAT YOU DESERVE for that intolerance!
November 29th, 2007 at 6:58 pmAtheism is the DISBELIEF in the existence of a God or Theology, which is as fanatical as the religious zealot. — BARTLEBEE
Sorry, but for you to ARGUE tolerance, you better learn to show some first, you hypocritical POS!
November 29th, 2007 at 7:00 pmHow does my adovcating tolerance for all belief systems and “non-belief†systems constitute my being like those who killed people for what they said?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 6:56 pm
How does "people who call themseves ATHEISTS are as fanatical as the nutjobs like Huckleberry" constitute "advocating tolerance for all belief systems and "non-belief" systems"?
November 29th, 2007 at 7:02 pmBut feel free to prove you’re not a liar, and post the words of mine that say “ALL atheists are zealotsâ€.
:|
I’ll be waiting right here.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 7:01 pm
Yes you did, liar.
Atheism is the DISBELIEF in the existence of a God or Theology, which is as fanatical as the religious zealot. — BARTLEBEE
November 29th, 2007 at 7:02 pmAnd just WHERE in that sentence do I say that ALL atheists are zealots? Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 7:02 pm
You have the Republican hypocritical thing down pat!
Atheism is the DISBELIEF in the existence of a God or Theology, which is as fanatical as the religious zealot. — BARTLEBEE
November 29th, 2007 at 7:03 pmHow does “people who call themseves ATHEISTS are as fanatical as the nutjobs like Huckleberry†constitute “advocating tolerance for all belief systems and “non-belief†systems“?
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — November 29, 2007 @ 7:02 pm
He's a typical religious hypocritical nut job, that believes tolerance should only extend to the religious, but not not the nonreligious.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:04 pmNo, what I’ve “proven†is that you are incapable of launching a valid argument against me, and are left with your strawman.
I’ve told you over and over and over and over and over that I am not a religious person, I do not belong to a religion, and I do not believe, nor disbelieve in God, because I can prove neither.
I’m sorry you don’t like that position, but your miserable, pathetic attempts to label me a Christian or a religious nut are laughable.
You’re laughable.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 7:06 pm
Yet despite not being a religious person, you have still yet to justify YOUR bigotry against atheism, or your hypocrisy for calling for tolerance while spreading bigotry like this:
Atheism is the DISBELIEF in the existence of a God or Theology, which is as fanatical as the religious zealot. — BARTLEBEE
November 29th, 2007 at 7:08 pmAnyone else think Bart is just BRAIN DEAD? It's like he can't process the fact that he's guilty of what he accuses others of doing, is just projecting. He seems to have CLASSIC REPUBLICAN BRAIN...
November 29th, 2007 at 7:09 pmYes, RHF it is obvious, I am done with it's posts anyway, no reasoning with it. Calling Atheists fanatical and then saying he didn't makes no sense what so ever.
Buck Fush
November 29th, 2007 at 7:13 pmNO, Christians are NOT TOLERATE OF ATHEISTS as YOU PROVE! And you GET WHAT YOU DESERVE for that intolerance!
Comment by republicans hate facts — November 29, 2007 @ 6:58 pm
I think you captured it there rhf.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:13 pmI’ve told you over and over and over and over and over that I am not a religious person, Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 7:06 pm
Actually Agnostic theism (what you are) IS being religious, just not an ORGANIZED religion. You still believe in god if you're agnostic. Which explains why you're such a stupid zealot!
You’re laughable.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 7:06 pm
Says the person that doesn't realize agnostic theism is religious!
You're a JOKE!
November 29th, 2007 at 7:14 pmI said nothing to piss you off, other than to denounce your fanatical attacks on the Christian left.
It disgust me the way you talk about those people, and it ought to disgust you.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 6:52 pm
That's a flat out lie. I have, on occasion, sarcastically "attacked" those, like the Huckster, who seek to turn our country into a Christian Theocracy. I even remember a night, not long ago, where we shared some light-hearted insults at the expense of "The Creation Museum".
The one occasion where someone felt insulted by what I said, I apologized and it was accepted. I limit my attacks to full-blown "Psycho-Christians", like Daryll, who use their Belief to excuse cruelty and destruction.
As you well know I try to be polite to people. I have no mercy on trolls.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:15 pmOnce more Nimrod, WHERE did I say ALL atheists are zealots?
Just like the idea of Adam and Eve may be extreme, it doesn’t necessitate that everyone who belongs to an order that believes it, is extreme.
You’re grasping for red herrings because you’ve got nothing else. I’ve spelled out over and over and over what I meant, and where I stand, and you just ignore it and keep labeling me a christian and a believer.
Which makes you the fool here.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
Atheists practice atheism, and you not only say atheists but atheism is fanatical.
Which makes you look like a LIAR and a FOOL!
November 29th, 2007 at 7:17 pmJust like the idea of Adam and Eve may be extreme, it doesn’t necessitate that everyone who belongs to an order that believes it, is extreme. Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
Actually you said the ORDER (atheism) is fanatical, therefore you CONTRADICT YOURSELF - HYPOCRITE!
November 29th, 2007 at 7:18 pmBARTLEBEE, 7:15 pm:
Once more Nimrod, WHERE did I say ALL atheists are zealots?
BARTLBEE, 5:15 pm:
I said people who call themseves ATHEISTS are as fanatical as the nutjobs like Huckleberry.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:21 pmI meant by “you†the collective, not you invididually necessarily. And I agree I’ve done my share of mocking of certain ridiculous beliefs that run contrary to all logic, introduced into Christianity that does not exist anywhere in actual Christian doctrine.
Like the Flintstones museum, lol.
But if you think that was a lie, then you’re not thinking, or at least not reading the comments of the junior anti-christ here, our pal RHF.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 7:20 pm
So then you're a hypocrite, because you attacked me for mocking someone believing in the literal adam and eve, yet you yourself admit you've mocked them as well. Ironic!
Actual Christian doctrine states a literal creation of adam and eve, despite scientific PROOF of evolution.
As for being an anti-christ, wtf are you talking about 'tard?
You call ATHEISM - FANATICISM, and then whine about people not being tolerant?
You're a f**king moron!
November 29th, 2007 at 7:22 pmBARTLEBEE, 7:15 pm:
Once more Nimrod, WHERE did I say ALL atheists are zealots?
BARTLBEE, 5:15 pm:
I said people who call themseves ATHEISTS are as fanatical as the nutjobs like Huckleberry.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — November 29, 2007 @ 7:21 pm
Bart has classic Republican brain damage syndrome. Often wrong, and hypocritical, but never able to admit it when called to the table! Religious fanatics like him tend to be that way. All projection, all the time!
November 29th, 2007 at 7:23 pmLol, the “ORDER�
:D
Now you’re describing atheism as an “order�
So by that Freudian slip, we can safely deduce that in your subconcious at least, you see atheism on a similar level as religion. lol
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 7:23 pm
Actually it was you that implied it was an order, I was helping you to comprehend something you're clearing too stupid to do otherwise. There was nothing (sub) about my post, other than your sub-human level of intellect I'm trying to help you compensate for.
You called ATHEISM (all atheists) fanatics - it's right there, we even keep REPEATING it for you - and yet you feign that you've never done so, and that you aren't being intolerant.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:25 pmYea no where here did I used the word ALL either, did I?
In fact, you both, kinda like trolls, are leaving out the fact that I also said that not ALL people calling themselves atheists are fanatics.
But you’d prefer to leave that out, because it doesn’t fit with your attack on me.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 7:25 pm
Actually you said "atheism" which encompasses ALL ATHEISTS - moron.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:26 pmBut you’d prefer to leave that out, because it doesn’t fit with your attack on me.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 7:25 pm
You didn't same SOME ATHEISTS, you said ATHEISM - which means ALL ATHEISTS, and you even went on to explain how ATHEISM ITSELF was all wrong and fanatical. So actually the attack on you was not only justified, but accurate. You however keep LYING about what you posted, even though we keep REPOSTING it.
I said people who call themseves ATHEISTS are as fanatical as the nutjobs like Huckleberry.
So, since people who call themselves atheists includes ALL ATHEISTS, then yep, you said ALL ATHEISTS, as in if someone didn't call themselves an atheist, then they aren't one - right?
or is that too complicated for a pee-brained agnostic-theist like you to understand?
November 29th, 2007 at 7:28 pmWell I’m not sure what type of brain damage syndrome you’ve been stricken with.
But whatever it is, it seems to include the ability to see the word “ALL†where it does not exist.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 7:27 pm
Actually if you say "people that call themselves atheists", that's "all people that call themselves atheists" - it's STANDARD ENGLISH - moron!
November 29th, 2007 at 7:29 pmNo, it doesn’t. To you it might mean that, but when I mean “ALLâ€, I’ll say “ALLâ€.
I don’t need you to forumulate my words or meanings for me. Theres plenty of trolls in here capable of handling that.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 7:28 pm
If you say "people that call themselves atheists", that's NOT QUALIFIED, other than by "people that call themselves", meaning that it is applied to ALL "PEOPLE THAT CALL THEMSELVES". Learn english - moron!
November 29th, 2007 at 7:30 pmI don’t need you to forumulate my words or meanings for me. Theres plenty of trolls in here capable of handling that.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 7:28 pm
You attacked ALL ATHEISTS, and now you're trying to claim you didn't?
It's IN THE RECORD you MORON!
November 29th, 2007 at 7:30 pmOh so now I’m an agnoistic?
A few minutes ago I was a Christian. What happened?
Did you have a revelation?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 7:30 pm
You're an agnostic theist that was probably raised either christian or jewish - it's obvious sport. To everyone but you.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:31 pmAnd you’ve repeatedly said that people that don’t believe in the existence of god are zealots. You’re a dickhead idiot.
Comment by republicans hate facts — November 29, 2007 @ 5:11 pm
You’re a liar.
Show me where I said that.
I said people who call themseves ATHEISTS are as fanatical as the nutjobs like Huckleberry.
And your rabid tirade in here tonight, coupled with your foaming at the mouth lunatic rants which prohibited you from ever reading or considering my position, has proven that fact.
Thanks.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
Here's your entire comment that I quoted above. Please show me where I left out the part where you "also said that not ALL people calling themselves atheists are fanatics."
Thanks.
By claiming that because you didn't use the word "ALL" when you said "people who call themseves ATHEISTS are as fanatical as the nutjobs " you weren't saying "ALL ATHEISTS" is disingenuous and frankly, makes YOU sound like a troll. Kind of like Jake, in fact, who I suspect has reemerged lately as "Man Slag".
November 29th, 2007 at 7:32 pmNo, it doesn’t. To you it might mean that, but when I mean “ALLâ€, I’ll say “ALLâ€.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 7:28 pm
Actually you DID say all.
Atheist = Fanatical Belief System/ Religious = Same Thing
November 29th, 2007 at 7:32 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
Bart has turned into quite the fanatical little liar. Was he hijacked, or did he just go crazy over thanksgiving?
November 29th, 2007 at 7:34 pmBut if you think that was a lie, then you’re not thinking, or at least not reading the comments of the junior anti-christ here, our pal RHF.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 7:20 pm
I gave up reading most of RHF's posts long ago,lol.
Your "lie" was directed at me and I took it personally. I do not take comments directed at: "you", "leftists", "libtards", "TPers", or even "atheists" personally. When I get attacked for trying to correct a falsehood from a, usually, reasonable person; I take it very personally. Especially when that person has shared a few jokes on that very subject.
To reiterate, claiming that "atheists are just as fanatic as Christian zealots" is, like most generalizations, wrong and destructive to reasonable discourse. It's as wrong, and destructive, as claiming all Muslims are terrorists or all Christians are like Daryll.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:37 pmDoes it strike anyone else as familiar troll behavior to insist on a strict interpretation of one's words when what they've posted later becomes uncomfortable?
For instance if a comment, taken in normal useage, is later directly contradicted or the poster even denies that he ever said such a thing, isn't it usually the trolls who, when confronted with their own words, generally cling like a frightened baby howler monkey to a strictly literal interpretation of what they said earlier?
November 29th, 2007 at 7:40 pmTo reiterate, claiming that “atheists are just as fanatic as Christian zealots†is, like most generalizations, wrong and destructive to reasonable discourse. It’s as wrong, and destructive, as claiming all Muslims are terrorists or all Christians are like Daryll.
Comment by pete — November 29, 2007 @ 7:37 pm
On top of that, there is scant evidence of bart's accusation. Almost all atheists are perfectly comfortable with the belief systems of the believers, unlike the believers when confronted with atheism. An occasional fanatic does not make all atheists fanatics. This seems to be lost on bart.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:42 pmAtheist = Evolved thought / Religious = Primitive superstition
Comment by Buckie Boy — November 29, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
Now, I’ve been responding to your questiions and attacks for hours, so now, a question for you mr Torqemada.
When you are attacking Religion, are you attacking ALL people who believe in or belong to a religion?
:|
Think about your answer carefuly Polonius.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 7:41 pm
where is the attack? thou dost protesteth, etc.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:44 pmin general, atheists are as foul and vehement to religious people as religious zealots are to non believers.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 7:49 pm
NOW you start adding some precision to your invective?
November 29th, 2007 at 7:55 pmBut you both believe in something you cannot prove. Are all of you fanatics? of course not. And I didn’t say that. But in general, atheists are as foul and vehement to religious people as religious zealots are to non believers.
You both have an axe to grind.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 7:49 pm
And you are making things up out of whole cloth. In general, atheists are generously disposed towards the religious, seeing them as misguided and fearful, but understanding that the culture has them trapped in their beliefs. Atheists also tend to be realists, and know better than to antagonize the vast majority of their fellow humans. In fact, most atheists are very quiet about it, since there is no reason to preach to those who rely on faith, and it matters not to most atheists to start churches. You have overreached, and the attacks on you are as much your own fault as anyone else's. Your snide assumption of superiority is a pretty good target, though, and your absolutist statements have painted you as extreme. You shouldn't be surprised at angry responses.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:02 pmOh and what do you call labeling them loons, morons, calling their beliefs and books fairy tales and bullsh$t?
Proselyting them?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 8:02 pm
Your control group is out of control. You're a very silly person to paint with such a broad brush. You don't even really know who's atheist and who isn't.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:04 pmSo, Bartlebee, ae you saying that your earlier language was imprecise, or are you saying that everyone who has taken issue with your stated position is a atheistic fanatic who is blinded by his disbelief?
November 29th, 2007 at 8:18 pmAnd by the way, if you think that patronizing self indulgent description that lambasts religious people as mindless children helps your cause, you’re sadly mistaken.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 8:10 pm
You are nearly as good at missing the point as you are at assembling straw men. If you think that my thoughts about religious followers are patronizing, self indulgent and lambasting them, then you obviously have no idea how the world works. Because I haven't yet met a believer that didn't try to convert an atheist, with threats of damnation or hell or some other such nonsense. So, basically, you have nothing. Atheists feel sorry for believers, and vice-versa. The difference is, atheists are routinely punished for their viewpoints, and are routinely denied equal access to the world of politics and power, unless they are quiet about it. and since atheists comprise maybe 5-6% of the general population, your bullshit about how mean and nasty we are to the poor, downtrodden Christian majority sounds very oddly like it was written for you by Bill O'Reilly. And if you think I have a cause that needs to be helped, you are sadly mistaken, as you are in your repeated lie that we have been losing all elections. tht's a lie, easily proved, but you keep repeating it; another O'Reilly trait. Looks like your cause needs some help.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:19 pmBut make no mistake about it. Other than the funny hats, I see little difference between the two.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 8:15 pm
You see proof in the imaginings of the faithful? wow, I hope you're not a lawyer. it's called hearsay, junior, and you have much to learn, if not the capacity. I've spent a long life studying atheism and religion, and there is not a shred of proof that a god of any sort exists or existed. hearsay, not proof. And now we're back where we started, and you're still wrong.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:23 pmThe fact is I said something that you cannot deal with.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 8:15 pm
No, the fact is you said a number of things that were either poorly expressed, too broad a generalization or logically flawed.
When people called you on any of those issues, you assumed they were atheists who only wanted to attack you because you'd hit on some truth too close to home.
TPers can deal with people making ludicrous arguments; we deal with them from trolls all the time. There was nothing you said that people couldn't "deal with". Sure, RHF got pretty belligerant, but you matched him step-for-step. And most of the rest of us in the discussion stayed pretty rational -- Pete, for instance, and Nature Rules, Lefty Patriot and others. But you ignored the even-headedness of those respondents and proclaimed that you were being "attacked" and used those attacks to claim repeatedly that your point about atheists was somehow proven.
And I suppose you'll consider it an attack when I say your point was not proven. Attack or not, your point ain't proven.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:29 pmI for one don’t like any of the labels. How about just everyone admits we don’t know, and take it from there?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 8:22 pm
Because I do know, that's why, and until I am shown otherwise, that's it. Atheism is not a philosophy designed to discount another, it is an acceptance of reality, and a rejection of the blindness of faith. It does not discredit religion, as it has no need to. It, in fact, is based on a positive premise: man is strong enough to take care of himself. Among my circle of friends, most are religious; some deeply so. I never discount or attack their personal beliefs, any more than, as a vegetarian, I would knock a steak out of their hands. Many of these friendships are decades old, and if I feel that they are somewhat misguided and misled, I am absolutely certain they feel the very same way about me. so, you are wrong. Wrong about the elections we lose, and wrong about atheism.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:31 pmSorry dude, I know the truth hurts. Maybe it should. …. thats how we know its the truth.
Because the truth is, all you’ve demonstrated here tonight, is that you don’t believe in God, as fanatically as a fundamental christian, does believe in him.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
And the anti-atheist d!ck returns...
STFU you stupid, moronic, intolerant, hypocritical POS.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:47 pmAtheist = Fanatical Belief System/ Religious = Same Thing
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
Comment by republicans hate facts — November 29, 2007 @ 7:32 pm
And like a troll, you leave out the post I was responding to.
Sorry, but you called atheism a fanatical belief system. You're an intolerant stupid hypocrite.
STFU, moron.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:49 pm“Because I knowâ€
See? You both even chant the same mantra’s.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 8:36 pm
Aren't you weak and cheap, now? Afraid that your faux superiority is being challenged? You adopt no position, right? I see that as the position of a coward. A fence-sitter, a wishy-washy scaredy-cat. You don't even leave yourself open to learning. I KNOW where I am, but I will change the very moment proof is presented, because I love to learn. That's how I became an atheist, by the way. Study, learning, investigating, inquiring, wondering. If my investigations had led to to god, that would have been just fine, since that is where I started (making me the very opposite of a fanatic, by the way). But they led me to Mankind, and that's where I am. At least I have a position. You're even worse-off than the religious fanatics.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:50 pmReally?
Then whats all this mean?
Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2] When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities,[3] alternatively called nontheism.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 8:42 pm
And religion as anti-atheism. What's your point?
Religious people like you are completely intolerant of the beliefs of atheists, yet you expect complete tolerance from atheists despite the stupidity, irrationality and flat out LIES propagated by religious people.
Sorry, but you're anti-rational - moron!
November 29th, 2007 at 8:51 pmBut they led me to Mankind, and that’s where I am. At least I have a position. You’re even worse-off than the religious fanatics.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — November 29, 2007 @ 8:50 pm
Not to mention the FACT that he's a HYPOCRITICAL LIAR! So much for that RELIGIOUS MORALITY he FALSELY CLAIMS to believe in!
November 29th, 2007 at 8:52 pmBecause the truth is, all you’ve demonstrated here tonight, is that you don’t believe in God, as fanatically as a fundamental christian, does believe in him.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
It has nothing to do with belief, nor is it fanaticism. You have started with a flawed concept, and followed it with a flawed process, leading to a flawed and wholly-incorrect conclusion. Are you really Bill O'Reilly?
November 29th, 2007 at 8:53 pmMisguided and fearful……gee, why would anyone feel that statement is patronizing or condescending?
Why would anyone mind being called that?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 8:24 pm
A stupid little d!ck like you, lecturing on being patronizing and condescending? The same little d!ck that said YOU ALONE KNEW all of the ancient manuscripts of Christianity, therefore everyone else's knowledge was irrelevant? The same little d!ck that said ALL OF ATHEISM IS FUNDAMENTALISM, then WHINED about the need for TOLERANCE?
Why would you mind being called a HYPOCRITE and a STUPID PATRONIZING LITTLE D!CK?
November 29th, 2007 at 8:55 pmBecause the truth is, all you’ve demonstrated here tonight, is that you don’t believe in God, as fanatically as a fundamental christian, does believe in him.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
A fanatic believes things in the face of proof to the contrary, or the lack of proof to substantiate, that would be you!
When you PROVE to me of god's existence, then your 'agnostic-theism', won't be FANATICISM. Until then, IT IS!
November 29th, 2007 at 8:56 pmatheism is the absence of belief in deities
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 8:42 pm
And there you have it. "Absence of belief". That is not a "belief system". It doesn't seek to denigrate, or discredit, any belief system.
As for the name calling you've attributed to me. That's a lie. I've never denigrated the beliefs of anyone online or in person. I have never called believers: foolish, misguided, loons, morons, or called their beliefs and books fairy tales and bullsh$t? And, I don't think anyone has in this discussion though, I admit, I haven't read most of RHF's posts.
I have commented on the hypocrisies of hypocrites and, I will fight ANY person who tries to create theocracy. I will also "call bullsh!t" on anyone who tries to apply false labels to those he/she clearly doesn't understand.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:59 pm"fanatical about your beliefs or non beliefs"
Now you're the illiterate one. Non beliefs?
HEISM = the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities
A-THEISM = the DISbelief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities
This ain’t rocket science pete.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 9:04 pm
Whose definitions are those? They're not mine. And even if they were, how can a non-belief or a disbelief be a belief?
This ain't rocket science, bart. Buy a dictionary, for pete's sake. You are looking ever more foolish with each post you hurl.
Sort of like O'Reilly.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:10 pmWow, 500+ posts on how “progressives†are intollerant of organized religion. Amazing.
Comment by cold_hard_left — November 29, 2007 @ 9:09 pm
Another rightard who can't read. Not amazing.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:10 pmThis ain’t rocket science pete.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 9:04 pm
Not to me. I apply "absence of belief" to myself. I understand exactly what it means and it's quite simple and obvious.
Many have tried to state the fact that disbelief, in theism, is not the same as assuming theism is false. I'm out of descriptions and analogies. All I can do is ask you to consider that I, at least, am an atheist who doesn't "believe there are no gods". I, simply, don't believe in any gods. If you can't see the difference, I've wasted an evening on a fools errand. But, I've done that before.
G'night all. I'm off to the bar for the second half of the football game.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:17 pmYou know Bartlebee this whole argument seems like it was intended to keep yourself the center of attention and certainly there are better ways to accomplish that. The fact is that most Christians believe in evolution. It is only fundamentalist Christians that believe in the literal translation of the bible that atheists have any problem with. And as much as you claim to know about religion if you weren't just looking for a fight you would have brought it up yourself. Fundamentalist Christians don't even consider Catholics "Christian" but instead of talking to fundies about how they omit other Christians from their group you come here assuming all Progressives are atheist and going off on a tangent.
Next time you need to feel like a big man perhaps you should just run down to the local tavern and buy young ladies drinks and save us the aggravation.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:33 pmf you don’t like it, then tell your friends to stop quoting me and talking to me and then I can stop responding. But as long as someone challenges me, and they’re WRONG, I’m not going to just crawl off and hide cause YOU think I should.
Don’t like it? Change the channel.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 9:37 pm
Except I'm right, and you're wrong. You keep conflating one word with another, as if they all mean the same thing. They don't. Don't like it? Buy that dictionary, and use it. In fact, the quote in your post 519 rests my case, completely and perfectly. It states a series of facts, not beliefs. Thanks.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:47 pmThis is your entirely your fabrication that you fabricated to try and shore up your crumbling position.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 9:47 pm
Well, admittedly, she's not as good at it as you are.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:50 pmprior to making any authoritarian and conclusive claims.
Comment by BARTLEBEE
In science there is no such thing as an authoritarian and conclusive claims, in opposition to religion.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:02 pmAtheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods.
Infidels.org
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 9:29 pm
Sorry, Bart, you've finished yourself off. Absence of belief and belief are not the same thing, even in your screwed-up world of "Bartlebee is always right, and everybody else is always wrong". Shayne has you pegged, little man. You can continue with your delusions that I am a "devoted believer" in my "cause", as if I need a defense from your ignorance and ego, or as if your uninformed opinion isn't a "fanatical cause" on its own, but until you return to English instead of Bartspeak, your blatherings are textbook projection, and you lack the courage of your convictions, or even the convictions themselves. You're not qualified to rewrite the English language, either.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:04 pmTHEISM = the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities
A-THEISM = the DISbelief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities
This ain’t rocket science pete.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 9:04 pm
If MAN hadn't invented God then the definitions wouldn't exits.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:12 pmTHEISM = the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities
A-THEISM = the DISbelief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities
This ain’t rocket science pete.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 9:04 pm
No, you're right. It ain't rocket science. And it's a good thing. Because you have demonstrated ANOTHER fundamental misunderstanding of the English language and its roots.
"A-THEISM" does not mean, as you claim "the DISbelief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities". The prefix "A" signifies a lack -- amoral, for instance, is the lack of a moral code. Thus, "A-theism" means a LACK of a belief in the existence of a divine entity.
Not the same thing as a DISbelief, I'm sure you'll agree. Well, I would be sure you'd agree, if you'd shown anything close to a reasonable nature thus far...
November 29th, 2007 at 10:25 pmWhen they can PROVE it, then we can graduate it to a fact.
Comment by BARTLEBEE
That sounds like a good point. However, I want to add what an atheist does: He DENIES the existence of Gods.
Now, what you are asking to atheists to do is really absurd, I would guess, because I can't prove that gay vampire aliens are not amongst us. You could build a whole mythology based on this, and you would believe that and tell us to prove their NON EXISTENCE. Well, yeah, you would be correct, but it would be much more useful for believers in God that they PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF THE OBJECT OF THEIR BELIEF.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:27 pmRalph, I guess I stepped into the mud with my denial comment.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:28 pmBartlebee's entire argument seems to me much like that algebraic "proof" that 1=0... the one that rested on the trick of dividing something by zero. It's a nonsense equation, but if you're not following it closely enough, it might seem logical.
Bartlebee's argument likewise rests on his contention that LACK OF A BELIEF is the same thing as BELIEF. If you can accept that, then there is a certain logic to his rant, shaky though that logic is. But if you recognize, like most of us do, that the qualitative equivalence he draws between Belief and its absence is nonsense, then nothng that follows that is ever going to make sense.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:33 pmMight be right. Might be wrong. When you can prove that then it will be a fact.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 10:15 pm
Sorry, you have it backwards. When you can prove there's a god, then it will be more than a belief. There is no need, scientifically or otherwise, for me to prove a negative. You can continue down that road, but you travel alone. I have proven there is no god (for me) by the very fact of the absence of any evidence or proof of the existence of same. Your only argument is based on hearsay and superstition, so you lose, in any court. It's very much like you trying to bring me to trial for not stealing something. Is that what's next for you, and will the trial be in the asylum you are sure to be inhabiting? And man most certainly invented god. Many gods, in fact, who have disappeared, one by one, as the questions get answered.
Well, it's been nice showing you the error of your ways. I have plenty of love and respect for my friends and associates who disagree with me because of their beliefs, but a fence-sitting coward like you who makes such foolish arguments just for the sake of "winning" is deserving of only the derision of the people here, and you have certainly drawn a lion's share of that.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:34 pmNo, Juan, I think your denial comment was very well stated. Won't help bartlebee understand, I fear, but we do what we can.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:35 pmReligionists will provide lots of evidence, a lot of hearsay, but also first hand accounts of people who have claimed in one way or another, to have communicated with this deity.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 10:29 pm
None of which PROVES a damn thing about the existence of God. It's evidence of something, certainly, but it is not proof that there is a God.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:38 pmAnd atheists “BELIEVE†God does not exist.
And they CANNOT PROVE that.
So sorry, but that constitutes a belief.
When they can PROVE it, then we can graduate it to a fact.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 10:13 pm
And we can't PROVE that you aren't a pedophile...
Unless you can prove a theory that something exists, in a SANE RATIONAL WORLD, it doesn't exist until it's proven.
The reality is there's NO PROOF of god, so your BELIEF that he exists, is no different from a child that believes in Santa Claus. Can you PROVE that Santa doesn't exist? If you can't then he's real, and you really need to get your list out!
See how STUPID you are, junior? Apparently NOT!
November 29th, 2007 at 10:41 pmReligionists will provide lots of evidence, a lot of hearsay, but also first hand accounts of people who have claimed in one way or another, to have communicated with this deity.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 10:29 pm
Yeah, and you can fiddle with their brains in a lab and cause them to have the same experience. The only proof this is, is that these people have a mental illness - much like YOURSELF!
November 29th, 2007 at 10:42 pmIF atheism was merely a “lack of belief†then your statement would have merit.
It is not.
A-THEISM is the anti-thesis of Theism.
It is the absolute DOCTRINE that there simply IS NO GOD, NO SPIRITUAL MATTER of any kind, and no afterlife, etc.
Actual athesim is as close to a religion in its so called philosophy as a thing that I can find, even though they don’t wear the funny hats.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 10:38 pm
Considering that religion is based on nonsense, and not science, then being against religion is no difference than being against those primitive peoples that still believe the earth is flat. There's what THEY BELIEVE, and then there's the SANE EDUCATED WORLD. We know which one you belong in, dum bass.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:43 pmIn many ways atheists are the same. They have faith, because they cannot prove a deity exists, that therefore one must not.
Oh, I'm an atheist and I have faith. I have faith in humanity to solve the current global problems. I have faith in my friends and in myself. That has nothing to do with religious thinking. The problem is that faith and religion are often taken as synonims (translation?).
The problem I see is that if you are willing to believe that there is a God and he did stuff like making the world, what stops you or anyone to believe a giant tomato did it. It is simply absurd. There. The idea of believing dogmatically a God has no limits because you can end up believing whatever you want. And, I really have no problem with that, but the idea of a God is, at the time, as absurd (but very entertaining and rich in culture and traditions) as any other mythology in the history of mankind.
Can you prove the existence of a 4th dimension?
How about a 9th?
Comment by BARTLEBEE
Of course those dimensions exist...in a topological (math) sense.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:43 pmA-THEISM is the anti-thesis of Theism.
It is the absolute DOCTRINE that there simply IS NO GOD, NO SPIRITUAL MATTER of any kind, and no afterlife, etc.
Actual athesim is as close to a religion in its so called philosophy as a thing that I can find, even though they don’t wear the funny hats.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 10:38 pm
Wrong again. There are certainly atheists who beilieve fervently that there is no God, but you have no more justification for describing "atheism" by those standards than an atheist has describing Christianity by the standards of Fred Phelps.
I was taking your cue when you claimed that the word "A-THEISM" meant the DISbelief in the existence of divine entities. I pointed out how, linguistically, you're wrong. Linguistically, "ATHEISM" means the absence of belief. It is the lack of a theism.
Your overbroad generalizations do nothing to strengthen that argument that you made, which was based on a mistaken understanding of the mechanics of the language.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:45 pmHey, RHF, could you stop the insults or they are really helping you to make your point go through?
November 29th, 2007 at 10:45 pmThe agnostic approach is the most sound one in the abscence of personal conviction or conclusive evidence. It balances a lack of belief with an open mind, and does not usually demonstrate the intolerance of religious beliefs that has been demonstrated in here.
Atheism insists you dismiss the religious person and all their beliefs as fallacy, and tells you essentially what you cannot believe. It is the extreme opposite of spiritual beliefs.
Agnosticism however has room for all schools of thought, and is the more reasonable approach in a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic world.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 10:43 pm
Agnosticism is for loser pansies like you! It's an antagonistic pedantic arrogant piece of sh!t stance that says you KNOW there's a god, and you know SO MUCH that you don't believe in OTHER RELIGIONS. It's the HEIGHT OF ARROGANCE - which explains why an over inflated stupid POS moron like you would BELIEVE in it.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:45 pmHey, RHF, could you stop the insults or they are really helping you to make your point go through?
Comment by Juan C. — November 29, 2007 @ 10:45 pm
When this f**ker says that atheists are fanatics, I'm just as obliged as when some moron says that you're a commie anti-american because of your family's history. Get it?
November 29th, 2007 at 10:46 pmCan you prove the existence of a 4th dimension?
How about a 9th?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 10:33 pm
Not only can you prove the 4th dimension, you can prove the effects of gravity on that dimension - just as Einstein predicted.
What YOU'VE proven, is that you're a pedantic, arrogant and ignorant *sshole.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:47 pmThe problem I see is that if you are willing to believe that there is a God and he did stuff like making the world, what stops you or anyone to believe a giant tomato did it.
Comment by Juan C. — November 29, 2007 @ 10:43 pm
Correction, Juan: it was not a tomato. it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:47 pmWhen this f**ker says that atheists are fanatics, I’m just as obliged as when some moron says that you’re a commie anti-american because of your family’s history. Get it?
Comment by republicans hate facts
Well, this kind of answers really support that opinion.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:47 pmIF atheism was merely a “lack of belief†then your statement would have merit.
It is not.
A-THEISM is the anti-thesis of Theism.
It is the absolute DOCTRINE that there simply IS NO GOD, NO SPIRITUAL MATTER of any kind, and no afterlife, etc.
Actual athesim is as close to a religion in its so called philosophy as a thing that I can find, even though they don’t wear the funny hats.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 10:38 pm
well, I thought I was done, but this little turd keeps popping up.
I am an atheist, bart, you aren't. therefore, i know what atheism is, i live it. You don't, you teorize, and you twist the meanings of words as if we had the same lack of understanding of the language as you demonstrate.
atheism is "lack of theism". Under no circumstances is it ANTI-THEISM. it is not a doctrine, it is the opposite of a doctrine. No church, no catechism, no holy book, no commandments, no thought about hell, heaven, punishment or reward, no doctrine whatsoever. I strive to live by the Golden Rule, because it's right. I strive to be good, because it's right. I strive to be honest, because it's easier. If I err on the path of goodness and morality, my punishment is temporal and wordly: a speeding ticket, a loss in pay, a friendship broken, a sleepless night. No external doctrine, other than man's own laws. You don't even know what you're going on about. You don't even know what atheism is, or how it manifests itself. It is the very opposite of religion. You are speaking from a position of such ignorance, I might mistake you for a fundamentalist of some religious order. And your command of vocabulary is amazingly weak, or extraordinarily disengenuous. Your attempt to speak for atheists without knowing anything about exemplifies bigotry and ignorance, and is shameful behavior.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:57 pmit was the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama
A strong argument against the idea of God is the way that ancient superstitions have been dispelled by human knowledge about physical phenomena. Changoo was the African God of thunder. Now we know thunder is produced by electrostatic discharges produced between a huge voltage difference in the atmosphere...not a mad guy.
That was a proof against the God of thunder, just like the one BART is looking and when scientists like Hawkin, were studying the beginning of the universe, John Paul II asked them not too. Unbelievable!!! He probably thought that he could be out of business.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:57 pmComment by Lefty Patriot — November 29, 2007 @ 10:57 pm
Wow, Lefty. Beautifully done.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:59 pmNow, do you still want to play this silly word game about whether or not A-THEISM is a “belief system†with a set of “beliefs�
Or do you just want to admit that my points not so bad after all, and maybe A-THEISM has as much of an axe to grind, as does religion.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 10:50 pm
Now who's playing silly word games? Was this lawyer also an atheist? Do all atheists feel and think the same? did the lawyer represent the Congreational Atheists or the Unitarian Atheists? All of your information is second-hand, culled from within the system, without an understanding of atheism from the atheist's point of view. it is proof of nothing except your inability to recognize your ignominious defeat tonight.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:03 pmthanks, ralph. 43 years of keeping my own atheistic counsel has only strengthened my confidence in Man's ability to take care of himself. Plus I can sleep late on Sundays.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:07 pmI'm in complete agreement Lefty Patriot. Thanks for putting in words what I cannot.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:08 pmPlus I can sleep late on Sundays.
Comment by Lefty Patriot
Hahahaha. Brilliant.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:12 pmYou guys keep purporting all sorts of stuff, but so far I’m the only one backing anything up with facts from the official statements or records.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 11:07 pm
I don't belong to any atheist organizations, because they do, indeed comport themselves too much like the churches they have tried to get away from. old habits die hard, but none of the "official statements" or records has anything to do with me, or atheism as I live it. Atheism with a capital A is just another club. I need no club, just as a really true believer in god needs no church. atheism is the rejection of doctrine. Formal Atheism is weak, uncommitted, fearful atheism, closer to agnosticism. More of a fashion statement, really. And certain to attract cultists and weirdos, like god does so well. Your broad brush has missed me completely.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:15 pmThey do however support everything I’ve said.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 11:11 pm
In your fevered dreams, maybe. They actually show you to be a propagandist of some small skill, although with very poor follow-through. They show you to be a cherry-picking bigot, with issues that need some resolution, probably with some professional counseling. They show you to be a self-aggrandizing, small-time smear artist, with an audience of one. I'm glad you're so damn stubborn, because this topic has been well-aired, and now many of our regulars have seen you for the small-minded creep you are, and have learned something about the seldom-discussed principles af personal atheism.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:21 pmThe thing that surprises me, BART, is that you say you have presented FACTS for the atheist issue, but you have NONE about the real issue here, the existence of a GOD.
Could you present one fact to support your idea of GOD?
November 29th, 2007 at 11:26 pmYou can strut around all you want, but the fact is the FACTS support what I said, NOT what you said.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 11:20 pm
Your only point was to conflate atheism with religion, and you have failed totally and mightily. Of course, you think you won, because that's what you're all about, but you are alone. You convinced nobody of your foolish bigotry, and most of your "facts" stood up and slapped your face. Most of the "facts" you presented were, by the way opinions and viewpoints, not facts at all. You really need that dictionary. And that therapist.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:27 pmBartlebee, I reread your initial comments in this thread up to #68 and it is easy to see that you were itching for some discussion on this subject. But the second comment:
Atheist = Fanatical Belief System/ Religious = Same Thing
is followed by a comment dissing Huckabee as Sampson (some character in an old book):
After all they both slew the Philistines with the jawbone of an ass.
And then we have this:
Theres little difference between the atheist and the religious zealot, other than the latter’s more likely to lend you money.
F * U * C * K * Y * O * U
November 29th, 2007 at 11:31 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 11:34 pm
You actually believe that? Any of it? You have proven nothing whatsoever, except that you can cherrypick, lie, and assign motives to someone you don't even know. You're a liar, and a shameless self-promoter with all the ethics of a Rove or O'Reilly. All three of your above points are lies, as anyone here can clearly see, and I have destroyed you and your credibility on this subject completely. You have been demoted to troll, 4th-class. Dismissed.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:45 pmYour response proved that statement.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 11:43 pm
Actually, that response is perfect for the lies and bullshit you are spewing. It's even more than you're worth, especially in the face of such a cheap, low shot. that's all you're left with, now that your "argument" has been shredded. Your little cheap shots. Shayne had you pegged, little man.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:47 pmI dont know how much higher up you wanted me to go, but you’ve produced NOTHING all night to support your denials of my positions, other than your own inane rhetoric.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 11:50 pm
You cherry-picked from a few sources that seemed to back up your ignorant rantings, I get it. hey, you had to do something to try to prove you weren't just an ignorant bigot. Too bad you failed so miserably. But keep at it, let's see how ridiculous you can look. You've set some sort of a record, but why stop now? 578 posts later, you have absolutely no support for your ignorant blather. An audience of one. Mental masturbation, that's what you are doing. The rest of the parade is out of step, you're the only one who's right. You're a sad case.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:58 pmNo whats happening here dickhead, is I’m getting an awfully good look what some of you are really are made of. In truth there are days I have more respect for the trolls, then for you.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 11:52 pm
Well, that's not surprising, since you are now squarely in the ranks of the most ignorant, bigoted, lying trolls that we have ever seen here. A direct posting from a Supreme Court case has no bearing whatsoever on the existence of god or the fact that there is no god. And those atheists were not speaking for all atheists, and certainly not for me. Your narrow-minded attempts to put every atheist into your little box stinks of bigotry and reflects your extremism. You lost this one, little man.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:04 amNo, I’m afraid you’re still lying because you cannot produce one shred of evidence to refute anything I said.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 12:04 am
There is no need to refute your lies and imaginings. You were wrong from the beginning, and you are wrong now. The American Atheists organization represents only its members, and is quite small, existing mainly as a lobbying organization. it is not a religious group, nor a church, and was advocating for the return to the Constitutional separation of church and state. Those are the facts, and they have nothing to do with your idiotic, uninformed opinions. You're just a troll, with a weird chip on his shoulder.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:09 amI proved that like religion, atheism purports beliefs and claims that cannot be proven. Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 11:34 pm
Whether Santa Claus doesn't exist also can't be proven - but people like YOU that BELIEVE in things with no basis in reality don't PROVE anything by claiming because he can't be proven to not exist, therefore he does. It just PROVES you're a 'tarded FANATICAL MORON!
I proved that atheism considers itself a doctrine, as does religion. Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 11:34 pm
Not at all. It's not a DOCTRINE, it's REASON AND RATIONAL THOUGHT - something YOU ARE DEVOID OF!
And I proved that when confronted with doubts to their own belief systems, atheists, like religionists, become fanatical and illogical.
:|
Well, to give you credit, you guys sorta proved that last one.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 11:34 pm
Says the FANATICAL and ILLOGICAL MORON that thinks HE KNOWS MORE than EVERYONE ELSE, while PROVING he KNOWS NOTHING!
YOU are a hypocrite and an embarrassment to the HUMAN CONDITION! And a TRUE MORON - that's the ONLY THING YOU'VE PROVEN!
November 30th, 2007 at 12:12 amNo, I’m afraid you’re still lying because you cannot produce one shred of evidence to refute anything I said.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 12:04 am
Sure we can. Your RELIGION is based on something you can't prove, therefore it doesn't exist until you prove it does. MORON!
November 30th, 2007 at 12:13 amLefty you’re a liar.
I’ve proven you wrong on every turn. I’ve produced documentation, links, references from highly qualified sources and you’ve produced NADA.
And you call that a win?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 12:11 am
The 'tard that has been PROVEN to be a liar, accuses others of his trait. You are TRULY A REPUBLICAN POS SCUM!
November 30th, 2007 at 12:14 amLook dickhead, you’re games getting old. Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 12:09 am
TYPICAL REPUBLICAN PROJECTION. Who stole your ID, or have you always been a dickhead in disguise?
Since you’re too inbred stupid to read, I’ll educate you one more time, but thats it. Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 12:09 am
You accusing others of being inbred - ah the irony!
Scroll up, find the point where that posting of beliefs had to do with anything about the existence of God. Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 12:09 am
If you have no PROOF something exists, that's not proof to discount those that say it doesn't exist. Something doesn't exist until it's proven to exist - PERIOD! Before then it's just a fantasy, fairy tale, POS lie.
I posted that in response to the other idiots claim that athesim is not a belief system.
So everything you just wrote is moot. You got it wrong again.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 12:09 am
Atheism is a rational conclusion to a lack of evidence, and if you believe atheism is a 'belief system', then so is reality, because you live in fantasy - YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM!
November 30th, 2007 at 12:17 amDo you people ever sleep, eat, ride bikes, or anything along those lines?
November 30th, 2007 at 12:17 amThat is what is nice about being an atheist, you don't have to do anything.
But as a resident of the South, I am still trying to understand why you can't hunt on Sunday but you can fish......and why I have to wait til everyone's is leaving church to buy alcohol? If its really that disturbing to church-goers that someone is buying alcohol while they pledge their time staring at a wall and singing songs...isn't really better for them that I buy my wine while they aren't looking.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:26 amAnd you call that a win?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 12:11 am
No, I didn't call it a win. I'm not looking for a win, I don't need a win. You have the deep-seated need for a win, even if you embarrass yourself with inane, psycho, illogical non-sequiturs and irrelevancies. Your documentation and links don't prove anything about atheists or atheism in general, just a handful of cultists. You are demonstrating typical troll behavior, and an irrational need to win a point that you were wrong on to begin with. Your whole argument is moot, as you based it on proving a negative, thereby losing from your first move. Everyone who weighed in agrees with me on that point. I won 43 years ago, when I proved beyond a shadow of a doubt the non-existence of god, and the error of blind faith. Not being a fanatic, however, in spite of your baseless and ignorant, not to mention rude, accusations of fanaticism, I am sure that if god were to appear or any good evidence or proof appear to me, I would have little trouble acknowledging Him, Her or It. So, no win necessary for me. As for you, when I say you lost, I mean you lost respect and credibility from many posters here. You are no different from the religious zealots you scorn, forcing your beliefs on everybody and insulting people as you go. You're a loser. Nobody wins with your anger and bigotry infecting this blog. On top of that, you didn't change a single mind or educate a single person, except to realize what a jerk you are. Congratulations.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:26 amBart
I have read all of your rant, and you truly don't understand what it means to most of us atheist. We don't believe in anything. What I mean is, we don't have to practice, pray or meet about anything.....we live our lives as though right is right and wrong is wrong with science creating known truths and religion creating blind faith.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:33 amAnd you don’t like the fact, that all the published data out there supports my theories, not yours.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 12:32 am
you have shown your ugliness and bigotry, and your hatefulness as well. your liberal credentials have always been suspect, because for all the time I have come here, you have been nasty and more interested in being right than anything else. I have said little about your crudeness and vicious behavior, because I am not kind to trolls myself, and because you have had the facts to back you up, most of the time. this time, you have made a blanket statement of raw ignorance, an opinion that you have been unable to back up with facts. You have attempted to paint me with your broad brush, and you have missed, every time. You have been profane and uncivil, you have lied repeatedly, and you have exhibited all the characteristics of a rightwing troll. You have insulted a group of people based on cherrypicking a few documents that have no relevance to most of us as individuals, and you have remained staunchly ignorant and opaque to other points of view, no matter how civily-presented. The only win you have is entirely in your own mind. You have constantly referred to outside data for a very personal issue, as if it were relevant, but it isn't. I don't know, nor do I care, why you hate the religious and areligious alike, but your hatred has distorted your common sense and reason. If you were a stupid person, I could feel sorry for your plight, but you have chosen an indefensible, hateful position, and made it clear that you think you are better than I. That is a serious character flaw, and I knew going in that you would be intractable and nasty, but I will not allow your lies and imaginings to go on the record uncorrected. You know naught of what you write when it comes to atheists. Nothing. Zero. You proved it with your logical fallacy, and you continued to prove it, time and again. We get it; you're ignorant and bigoted. Shout it from the rooftops.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:52 amthat I’m still as right as I was 500 comments earlier.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 12:52 am
exactly. you are exactly as right as you were 500 posts ago.
totally, completely, wrong, all day long. shown to all to be a manic fool, proving your incorrect points only to yourself, over and over. characterizing anybody showing your errors as clowns, etc. risen to the challenge/ there was no challenge to rise to. one doesn't challenge insanity. or false logic, one just points it out, and everyone else says "oh yeah, he's wrong". That's what has happened to you, bart. Everyone here knows you are dead wrong, except you. your doctrine of absolutism has strangled you, and left you for dead. your doctrine of absolutism is but slander and bigotry, masquerading as idiocy. I have no need to prove the non-existence of anything; if it doesn't exist, it isn't there. I'm sorry that's too deep for you to grasp, but so be it. You have clung to the same fallacy for the entire day, and you have gone nowhere with it. I guess you're just a bonehead.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:00 amIf to you, the idea that the jury’s out on the existence of a deity constitutes bigotry, then you are in possession of a level of stupid that cannot be fixed.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 1:00 am
if you have the idea that the non-existence of something nobody can see, find or prove constitutes a valid point of discussion, then you haven't even ascended to my level of stupid. Wrong all day, and none of your whining and lying will ever change that. that's your legacy. Note that in the whole thread there is not a single post supporting your bullshit. You are alone in your stupidity. Center of your own little universe, such as it is.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:07 amYour willful stupidity is making me sleepy. You have proven your idiocy and irrelevance; I just ran through the thread, and you haven't a single supporter for your bs, and I never resorted to the namecalling and profanity you did. Your absolutism has nothing to do with your agnosticism, that's another of your straw men; you lie constantly, and you're as wrong as wrong can be. your understanding of atheism is non-existent, like god, and that will only change if you let it. the lord helps those that help themselves. next time you want to be a big shot, pick a subject you have some personal knowledge of. that way you won't go down in flames the way you have tonight.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:33 amI agree with Bartlebee, the reason you don't see posts supporting him is because posts like those from "lefty patriot" alienate religious democrats from joining or affiliating themselves with this site. No matter how logical an argument is or is not, if it pushes people away, such as me, who was linked to this site; that argument will always be the losing one.
"Lefty Patriot's" argument will always be a loss for the democratic party. Obama's message, for instance, on faith playing a role in politics to grow the democratic base are undermined by agenda driven atheists such as Lefty Patriot.
November 30th, 2007 at 2:08 amComment by AndersonCooper — November 30, 2007 @ 2:08 am
No. The reason you don't see posts supporting him is because his arguement is (1) flawed and (2) relies on broad generalizations. His arguement will always be wrong, not because of the people on this site, but rather because his arguement is inherently incorrect.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:28 amLooks like a core meltdown in here.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:56 amTheres little difference between the atheist and the religious zealot, other than the latter’s more likely to lend you money.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
This is the one that stinks up Bartlebee. Can you imagine if anyone said, there is little difference between a jew and a religious zeolot, other than the latter's more likely to lend you money?!?! Ahh the antisemitism cries would be loud and clear.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:23 amBart, you're like a bad disney movie, where the adolescent believes he's smarter than the adults, because he believes Santa MIGHT be real. It doesn't make you smarter than adults bart, no matter how many times you play the movie in your head - it makes you a sad little boy that won't grow up.
November 30th, 2007 at 2:09 pmI’ve handled a lot worse than you clowns in here, and I need no help in proving my position with the facts, logic and reason, nor in dealing with a bunch of smug knucklheads who think they’ve got all the answers.
On my worst day I could handle you clowns on your best, with one keyboard tied behind my back.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
All projection, you sure you aren't a republican, little smug stupid f**ker? You act like one! You haven't used reason, that's what atheism does - you've used strawman b**lsh*t, the only thing religious fools like you have to offer.
November 30th, 2007 at 2:11 pmDamn, I can't believe Bartybee came back for more. Not to mention he wrote what appears to be a crazy person manifesto in post #620.
November 30th, 2007 at 4:18 pmBartlebee
You're not a neutral 3rd party. I think that is clear.
November 30th, 2007 at 4:21 pmYou're argument that atheism is a belief system lies in this concept:
"The fact is atheism, like religion, is a belief system, based on that which cannot be proven. Just because an atheist calls his position a method, or philosophy, doesn’t change the fact that to the neutral third party, it is no less a belief system than the religion is to the religionist."
By having to prove the non-existence of god, the underlying assumption is that god exists.
Since I cannot prove the existence of god, I can not prove the non-existence of god.
November 30th, 2007 at 4:24 pmNOT KNOWING means NOT KNOWING.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 4:28 pm
How do you know I exist? How you "know" anything?
I guess you believe I exist and you BELIEVE what you claim to know.
I guess just like the athiest and the religionist, you also operate within your own set of unprovable beliefs.
November 30th, 2007 at 4:33 pmseems a little off topic, but I guess I'll take that one.
Not all Jews are fools, but I am sure there are some foolish Jews.
November 30th, 2007 at 4:38 pmWell for starters DimWit, I have your idiotic responses to my words that indicate a creature of limited intelligence is present.
its possible, though improbable, that all of my responses are a the product of random electrical impulses that caused all of my responses to be posted on this particular site.
You have no evidence to suggest this theory is incorrect.
You simply believe I exist, yet you have no evidence of my existence.
November 30th, 2007 at 4:43 pm"After all they feel their communications to him are responded to. "
They do not "feel" their communications are responded to. They choose to believe they are.
November 30th, 2007 at 4:44 pmI don't know if RHF even exists. For all I know you could be using two handles.
I cannot speak for or on behalf of this RHF person.
November 30th, 2007 at 4:46 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 12:04 pm
I have no idea why I give a rip but, here goes.
First, let me repeat, I seldom read RHF's posts, once he gets his dander up. I specifically excluded his statements and I should have excluded statements which attacked you rather than religion in general. No offense to RHF but I get enough "hate speak" from other sources. And, I don't think comments made to you, in anger, count as denigration of religion.
Also, I often comment without reading the previous posts, which I did in this case, so I missed LP's "remark which started it all". Though, to be fair, I think "primitive superstion" is an accurate description of religion. You may believe it's denigrating but I don't. I have a high regard for primitive superstitions, myths, etc. because they tell us much about who we are. Ditto for "fairy tales". In the absence of "proof" all of these are fair, and accurate, labels.
Taken in context, "threats of damnation or Hell or some other nonsense", is a fair description of proselytizing. Taken in context the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" was directed at the Huckster, not religion in general. So, you're wide of the mark on two more points.
"Invisible guy in the sky"? Come on. Anyone who thinks that's denigration better check the thickness of their skin. The minister of the church of my youth regularly said, "The Man Upstairs". By your logic he, or anyone who says "Holy Spirit", "Our Father", etc. is being insensitive for not saying "Yahweh, the one true God" every time they refer to a deity. Perhaps "God" is the only name we may use?
So. We are now left with one example:
After seeing some video clips from their church services, I have to admit these people really freak me out!
Really makes you wonder what is the difference between Evangelicals and your average cult.
If those clips include: "Jesus Camp", a couple preachers I've listened to, virtually any televangelist I've seen, or a Presidential candidate pretending to take a call from God, it's a very fair question. What is the difference between evangelicals and your average cult?
My answer is that evangelicals are different only in the "legitimacy" lent by the Bible and their numbers. And, contrary to popular belief, "cults" are not uniformly evil. In fact, some of the earliest references to Christianity refer to it, accurately, as a cult. It merely depends on ones perspective.
There we go. All your points deflected and you still stand alone with your imagined insults. I did not intend to insult you, or religion, or Christianity, or anybody. My only point was to inform you that you were, and still are, operating under the misconception that "an Atheist is just as fanatical and closed minded as a religious zealot". It's an inaccurate statement which I disprove every day of my life. I now know it's impossible to dissuade you from your rash belief. I won't make the same mistake again and would thank you to not include me in your own rigid structure of the universe. I am a whole person, alone and unique, my whole existence belies your false assumptions.
November 30th, 2007 at 4:53 pmTo date, no evidence, claims, etc, have been made about “random electrical responsesâ€, that are somehow able to take over a computer and respond to specific questioning in detailed grammatics.
So just making stuff up is a childs game that shows you’re out of ammo.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
I see you have no intentions of having a legitimate debate. You are correct I made it up, but you choose to read the words and oversimply the concept which is at the heart of the statement.
What I am saying is that, if I don't exist, I could still explain everything I have written here through a logical and possible set of actions. While it is highly improbable that a series of random electrical impulses put my responses on this post, it is not impossible.
My criticism of you is that you choose to believe I exist, knowing full well that there is a possibility, however slight, that I am nothing more than a figment of your imagination or a series or random electrical impules or some child just pushing buttons on his father's computer and managing to have created sentences.
You choose to believe I exist because it is logical for you to choose this belief system. You are a believer in an unprovable set of actions. You are just as much of a believer as are the people you criticize.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:05 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 5:10 pm
I can't address the "facts" you claim to produce because the "facts" you claim are not actual facts. They are a set of experiences, beliefs, actions, and allegories.
Experiences which, having ocurred thousands of year ago, I cannot empirically prove or disprove.
Beliefs which, by definition, are unprovable.
Actions which I never witnessed.
Also, stop reducing your arguements to name calling and insults. I have never attacked you. Nor is there anyone else here, right now, who is attacking you personally.
Think about what you are saying and writing. Its denegrated from the stronger points you were trying to make yesterday.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:17 pmComing back to LIE and MISLEAD is not going to help your cause any.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
Are you really that stupid? You attacked me for a specific post, the one I made at 8:59 pm, where I specifically excluded RHF's posts. Why? Because he's an a$$ and doesn't speak for me or anyone else. If you have a beef with him, leave me out of it. Plus, some of the posts you referred to were made after my 8:59 post. It's difficult to read something before it's posted. Furthermore, most of them were directed, squarely, at you as opposed to religion.
Point two:
Using YOUR logic, whats the difference between atheists and your average religion?
First of all, that's not your original assertion that;“an Atheist is just as fanatical and closed minded as a religious zealotâ€.
Luckily I can answer both with the same logic. I am an atheist. I'm not a fanatic. I don't profess, or promote, atheism in the face of contradictory evidence. I treat every person I meet with respect. Hell, I even treat trolls with respect until they lie, or attack me personally. I don't denigrate religion, race, creed or party. I denigrate people who, by word or deed, prove themselves worthy of denigration. If that includes idiotic beliefs based on religion, or party loyalty, so be it. Even then, I attack the individual rather than the religion or party. I make every effort to distinguish between the object of my attack and whatever group they belong to. I don't even attack Republicans, in general, when the problem is the neocon criminals who have hijacked the party.
That's all the explanation you'll get from me. If you can't figure it out; that's your problem and yours alone.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:23 pmThird, as long as you LIE, and invent strawmen arguments and attribute them to me, I’ll call you anything I want.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 5:27 pm
I've never lied.
Shit you still can't even prove I exist, let alone invent anything.
BTW, the only evidence I've seen you present to all the"NUH UH" claims are your saying "UH UH"
You're supposed proofs are worthless. You know it. Everytime someone puts up a legitimate and logical response to your supposed proofs you just discount, ignore, and belittle them.
You never post anything of substance to support your beliefs.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:39 pmI made a simple statement yesterday. I said that I believe that atheism is like relgion, in that neither can prove their claims.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
Bartlebee, much like people who believe in a particular religion cannot prove their claims, you cannot prove yours
November 30th, 2007 at 5:44 pmI have listened to insult after insult for 2 years now against religious people,
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 5:33 pm
Not from me. I don't speak for anyone else so I can't answer your claims about others. You have not only chosen an un-winnable fight but, the wrong target. By your logic, the Iraqis should charge you with war crimes because you failed to prevent the Bush administration.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:44 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
I see your chosen debating technique is to act in such a childish and remedial fashion that no one will tolerate you.
Your strategy is nothing more than to win by attrition.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:50 pmSo whats your point?
What are you doing in here after 2 days and 700 comments blabbeing about?
I made a simple statement yesterday. I said that I believe that atheism is like relgion, in that neither can prove their claims.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
That's not your original, false, statement that "atheists are the same as religious zealots", which is the only point I've responded to. And until this very moment, I haven't "attacked" you as an arrogant, ignorant, self-agrandizing sh!t-stain.
If you are looking for a blanket statement that atheism is a religion, or like a religion, or whatever the Hell you think you mean; you're not going to get it. Unless someone lies to shut you up.
Once again, If you have a beef with someone, take it up with them AND LEAVE ME THE FU(K OUT OF IT!!!
November 30th, 2007 at 5:53 pmWHEN you can address the FACTS I spelled out, come see me. In the meanwhile, you’re just another idiot who doesn’t know he’s beaten.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
It appears your facts aren't backed by actual facts.
Also, you're not an atheist. How can you claim to know what one believes?
C'mon, lets hear it again. I can't wait for you to claim I am just saying "Nuh uh" yet again.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:58 pmThat’s an incredibly narrow view based on an incredible lack of information.
Comment by pete — November 29, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
Yes, that's an observation not an insult and was directed at you because you made a statement which is easy to refute. "Atheists are the same as religious zealots". Not "like", not "similar", not "some atheists". You made a general statement and then tried to change the English language rather then admit there might be a thoughtful, logical, route to atheism. Your a fool. And I'm a bigger fool for thinking you may realize it.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:01 pmAnd another thing,
you seem to keep trying to choose the "facts" and what the "facts" are.
No one could win an arguement with you, becuase you believe what you want to believe and discredit everything else.
It doesn't matter what I, or anyone else, says. You won't accept it anyway.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:01 pmBartlebee, he main drawback to your line of thought is that there is no good support for the theorem which you claim.
For example, scientists do not deny the existence of, say, tachyons (faster-than-light particles) simply because no good evidence has been produced that they exist. And the same is true for other entities postulated in other hypotheses. Scientists do not reason to the nonexistence of the postulated entity merely from the current absence of positive evidence for its existence.
The burden-of-proof principle is therefore not one that can be employed to counter your baseless arguement
November 30th, 2007 at 6:05 pmBTW, I've never visited any atheist website, or asked any other to define my beliefs, or lack thereof. And, I've changed my mind. You are definitely the King-God of all fools. At least for today.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:05 pmDid Bartlebee give finally give up?
November 30th, 2007 at 6:14 pmI never personally attacked you.
I only attacked your hypothesis.
And I am forced to ignore most of what you say, because most of what you say is ignorable.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:16 pmAlso, please keep your crazy person-type rants to a minimum.
Doing so increases the probability I will actually read them.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:17 pmbartlebee,
my work day is over
I'm out of here for now.
However, I'll respond to your baseless rhetoric when I get home.
Please, I do request you keep your diatribes short and simple.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:19 pmOh man, Buttlebee is still rambling on and on here. Goodness, get a life, atheist are not Fanatical, and yes, you did say this...can't believe he is still at it, what a nut job.
Atheist = Fanatical Belief System/ Religious = Same Thing
Comment by BARTLEBEE
November 30th, 2007 at 6:23 pmAnd I laugh at you for being a fool to waste so much time on this.
Atheist = Evolved thought / Religious = Primitive superstition
And it still is true.
Buck Fush
November 30th, 2007 at 6:35 pmIt' not hate speech, Religion is a Primitive superstition.
Looks like you're gonna have a heart attack, better cool down, hehe.
Buttlebee = nut job galore.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:38 pmWell, I got my laugh for the day at your expense, sorry that you are so obsessed with the subject, it sure it a nerve with you, wow.
Laters, I got some hate to spread....hehe, not really, I'm a better person than any christian I have ever met.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:42 pmWell, I do have a life and only post here now and then. But then again you are so into the subject that you lost all perspective on it and quickly resorted to name calling and well, when you were getting ugly with everyone I just didn't need to read how you were falling apart.
Gonna drop it now, and you should too, I have other things to attend to.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:47 pmSee, that's what I mean, you lost all perspective and reduced yourself to name calling, which, well is what ugly (minded) people do.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:52 pmYour welcome.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:53 pmYou're Welcome again.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:59 pmMerry Christmas, Bartlebee. Don't open it till Christmas day now.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:01 pmDid not call religious people primitive or anything else, but I do believe religion is a primitive superstition.
And you are really being silly on this Bartlebee.
At least you have quit with the ugly name calling, it is unbecoming of you.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:16 pmAnd F$a##$k THE REST OF YOU LIMPDICK C0CKSUCKERS WHO ALLOW HATE SPEECH LIKE THIS, AND CONDEMN ME FOR MERELY STANDING UP TO IT.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
Its not hate speech. Its a criticism of a particular viewpoint.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:28 pmAtheism and Religion BOTH are fanatical in that they BOTH can neither prove their own positions, nor disprove the other.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 7:14 pm
Btlb
You have so many original comments its hard to keep track of them.
In case you didn't realize it, Bartlebee, but you are the epitome of fanatical.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:36 pmBart calling atheists fanatics, are like a little boy calling adults fanatics because they tell him santa claus isn't real. It's more of a sign of his adolescent inability to deal with reality, than it is a 'rational' statement.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:36 pmYes, I should have typed "religion", because that is what I meant. And I should really have used, "Scientific" instead of evolved. My bad about not expressing myself more accurately.
I try to never attack people with verbal name calling and stuff, well almost never, but unfortunately you went off like a crazy person, sorry if I hit a nerve there.
And thank you for reframing from the naming calling, it is impolite.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:37 pmAtheism and Religion BOTH are fanatical in that they BOTH can neither prove their own positions, nor disprove the other.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 7:14 pm
If that's true, then people that say santa claus isn't real are FANATICS. You aren't making a logical argument, you're making a childish rant... Then again, it's appropriate considering your level of social development...
November 30th, 2007 at 7:37 pmAnd thank you for reframing from the naming calling, it is impolite.
Comment by Buckie Boy — November 30, 2007 @ 7:37 pm
Bart's been calling atheists FANATICS for this entire thread - he's a childish little hypocrite, poor little FANATICAL 'tard.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:38 pmYou defend his “criticism†of the religious, but you spend two days decying me, my character, my intelligence, etc, for simply offering my criticism of the a-religious, in response to his criticism of the religious.
:|
And you think yourselves superior for it.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 7:41 pm
Lets see, you've criticized everyone else is ignorant of the religious facts, fanatical and lacking in intelligence, and being inferior because we aren't agnostic-theists like yourself, and you think yourself superior for it. That's what we call being a foolish and childish hypocrite!
November 30th, 2007 at 7:44 pm:|
See?
This jackass has the gall to sit here and pat Buckie Boy on the back, for calling the religious “SUPERSTITIOUS†and “PRIMITIVE†but I’m a peice of sh$t because I dared call atheists “FANATICâ€.
:|
And in doing so proves he’s a fanatic.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 7:43 pm
See, you call ATHEISM - FANATICISM, and can't handle it when people point out that the belief the earth is 6000 years old is SUPERSTITIOUS and PRIMITIVE (AS THE FACTS PROVE IT IS)...
And yes, you ARE a POS for calling people with a RATIONAL STANCE fanatics. What's SANTA bringing YOU for Christmas, since he's REAL and not SUPERSTITIOUS?
November 30th, 2007 at 7:46 pmBlood pressure check isle 718.
They all knew what I meant, you on the other hand went on some obsessed rant for 2 days about it.
And you are still name calling people, you get better results from suger than poo, you know.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:47 pmWhat constituted you clowns to sit here for 2 days bashing me and my position, IF his statement was just merely “criticism of a particular viewpoint�
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 7:36 pm
What? That doesn't even make any sense.
The "diff" is that you called his comment hate speech. No one ever called your comment hate speech. This thread is a dialogue (or at least thats what I try to keep it) but you are the one making baseless accusations.
If you disagree with any comment I or anyone else has made, please feel free to disagree. But your simple disagreement does not make the other person's viewpoint "hate speech"
-----
Either way, he attacked religion FIRST.
I merely responded, by pointing out that I think atheism is as fanatical as religion.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 7:30 pm
And you have every reason to disagree with his comment and to respond to it. There is nothing wrong with that. From either him, you, or me.
----
And when I responded though, my response somehow deserved to be bashed for 2 days and 700 comments straight?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007
You are being responded to. Yes, some of the posts are more critical (and childish) than others. I imagine if you stopped responding people would stop criticizing.
Think of all the other fabulous posts you missed out on today. I'm sure you could have made any point you wanted in those other posts and someone would be there to criticize it and someone would be there to support it.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:48 pmWell, you guys have proven your hypocrisy better than I ever could.
I’m ashamed to number myself among you.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 7:49 pm
You should really give yourself more credit! CALLING people fanatics, and whining about how others are intolerant is pretty much as ROVE as you can get!
You AREN'T one of us, not if you're 'tarded and republican!
Your stance amounts to, you can't prove santa claus doesn't exist, so you're a fanatic if you tell your child or believe he doesn't! And you are spreading hate speech if you tell your children he doesn't!
That's as JUVENILE and HYPOCRITICAL as ANYTHING REPUBLICANS EVER DO! You sure you aren't a republican? You seem like a natural! What' RECOVERING REPUBLICAN? Because all of the CHILDISH and CHILDHOOD programming of yours has DEFINITELY KICKED IN!
November 30th, 2007 at 7:52 pmDon't forget that Bartlebee also believes atheists are tight wads with their money. Yes B, giving money to the poor and needy is something only religious people do.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:53 pmHow schizoid is bart?
First he calls religious people fanatics, then WHINES about how we shouldn't attack religious people, and that's why WE win elections?
Sorry bart, but whatever medications you're normally on aren't working anymore!
November 30th, 2007 at 7:54 pmDon’t forget that Bartlebee also believes atheists are tight wads with their money. Yes B, giving money to the poor and needy is something only religious people do.
Comment by Nature Rules — November 30, 2007 @ 7:53 pm
I know, isn't that hysterical? and yet everyone is is the HATE SPEECH purveyor! Someone's got a misplaced superiority complex!
November 30th, 2007 at 7:55 pmAs I stated, agnostics are fanatical. I see I've been proven right.
And F$a##$k THE REST OF YOU LIMPDICK C0CKSUCKERS WHO ALLOW HATE SPEECH LIKE THIS, AND CONDEMN ME FOR MERELY STANDING UP TO IT.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
Bwahahahaha!
IF his comment, calling the religious “PRIMITIVE and SUPERSTITIOUS was simply “criticism of a particular viewpoint†then how DARE you self righteous assh0les sit here for two days for SIMPLY RESPONDING offering my criticism of HIS “particular viewpoint�
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 7:33 pm
Hehehehehe!
This is the reasonable one, folks!
And after all that, still wrong. Beautiful. poor bart.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:56 pmWell, with all the childish name calling Bart is doing, I see that his obsession cannot be reasoned with, even politely.
You know Bart, I may have used the wrong words to exactly express myself somewhat there, and I'm sorry if it upset you so much, but really the constant personal attacks are unbecoming and I just don't see the point of communicating with someone like that.
Calm down, breath, stop with the names, you will do better tomorrow.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:56 pmSo bart, if you're a religious expert, please give us a dissertation on the origins of Yahweh and "the christ myth" (and I'm not talking about the Jesus version - I'm talking BEFORE then)...
Can you do that sport?
November 30th, 2007 at 7:57 pmThis jackass has the gall to sit here and pat Buckie Boy on the back, for calling the religious “SUPERSTITIOUS†and “PRIMITIVE†but I’m a peice of sh$t because I dared call atheists “FANATICâ€.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 30, 2007 @ 7:43 pm
Bartlbee,
ignore the childish name calling. Its not personal. I support both BuckieBoy's and your right to criticize and disagree.
However, the issue at hand is that you made a baseless comment. Atheists are not necessarily fanatics
And neither are religous people.
Some may be fanatical. Many are not.
You, however, are most certainly fanatical.