FLASHBACK: Mike Huckabee’s Phone Call From God
FLASHBACK: Mike Huckabee’s Phone Call From God
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)
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
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
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 pm