Conservative Christmas hypocrisy.
By on Dec 13th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Conservative Christmas hypocrisy.
Yesterday, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) attacked the nine “liberal Democrat” “naysayers” who voted against his resolution on the “importance of Christmas and the Christian faith.” Today, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) responded, explaining his vote:
While the Republicans are passing a resolution celebrating Christmas, the president was vetoing health care for children. There’s a little bit of irony going on around here.
King was one of the lawmakers who voted against expanding SCHIP.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Graham
Guantanamo
Hannity
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Limbaugh
Liz Cheney
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
HR 847 went beyond the previous HR Res on Ramadan.
December 13th, 2007 at 8:23 pmIt "acknowledges and supports the role played by Christians and Christianity in the founding of the United States and in the formation of the western civilization;"
This Res was not done in the same spirit as the Islamic faith recognition.
This latest was a backdoor attempt to say that America is a Christian nation.
Neat trick, Stevie Boy!
By clicking onto the hypertexted "nine" above, you'll be able to view the roll call vote.
Of the forty representatives who did not vote, TWENTY-ONE (more than half) were Republicans, including, get this....Steve King (R-IA).
So, he couldn't see fit to vote for his own bill, at the same time, criticizing those who voted against it?
Why has no one held him to account or this?
December 13th, 2007 at 8:25 pmWere the Founding Fathers Christians?
December 13th, 2007 at 8:25 pmThey were certainly godly men who believed in a supreme being, but not everyone would subscribe to the Apostles' Creed.
Slight correction to previous post...
Neat trick, Stevie Boy!
By clicking onto the hypertexted “nine†above, you’ll be able to view the roll call vote.
Of the forty representatives who did not vote, TWENTY-ONE (more than half) were Republicans, including, get this….Steve King (R-IA).
So, he couldn’t see fit to vote for his own bill, at the same time, criticizing those who voted against it?
Why has no one held him to account for this?
December 13th, 2007 at 8:26 pmRighty:
"Nativity Sets, good. Critical to National Security.
Sick Kids?...screw'em.
bet y'all didn't know those were traditional values, didja? course ya didn't, cuz yer commies!"
December 13th, 2007 at 8:27 pmHere is a posting that I placed on another site a couple of weeks ago...
Benjamin Franklin did not appear to be a huge fan of Christianity. About the topic, he was quoted as follows:
“If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both there (England) and in New England.â€
It certainly would seem that John Adams, our second president, was not a major promoter of Christianity. Please consider the following quote:
“I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved–the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!†— John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson
And are you sure that Thomas Jefferson supported Christianity:
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry.†AND
"Twenty gods or no god? Which Christian denomination provides such a degree of latitude?"
Do you suppose that Christianity as practiced in Salem, MA (circa 1619) might what the Founding Fathers had mind–or not?
Anyone who pays taxes in this country is already supporting (financially, at least) Christian denominations in this country. The U. S. government collects taxes from most of us (except the very rich) and then hands it over to the “right†Christian denominations as part of the program for faith-based initiatives. Whether we like it or not, we have no choice (short of voting the scoundrels out of office) as to whether we will place our hard-earned money in the offering plate, which plate we will place it in, or how much we will be required to donate.
In fact, how many of you have received a notice from the I. R. S., enumerating for you how much of your tax bill went to church-based organizations? At the very least, you should be able to deduct it as a charitable contribution.
We should also receive an accounting of how well their program worked in repairing the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina.
December 13th, 2007 at 8:31 pmDon't know where to post this off-topic ...sorry
Mitt Romney founded Bain & Co. in 1984, and today its spinoff -- Bain Capital -- is the third largest private equity firm in the country. Today they bought ClearChannel, a company that owns over 1100 radio stations and 30 TV stations.
How many people doubt he will use these 1100 radio stations to "promote" his candidacy? ANd if he doesn't win the nomination, won't his radio stations plug the Repugnican candidate? Consolidation of media..
December 13th, 2007 at 8:34 pmRep. King (R) should be working on useful legistlations rather than chasing empty slogans like war on Christmas by O'Reilly, Gibson & co.,which we now hear that it has been won and victory has been declared.
Rep. King should act as a representative rather than propagandist, becuase the whole issue does not exist and does not deserve the time spent on.
December 13th, 2007 at 8:34 pmA little while ago tonight, I emailed my representative, John Hall, regarding this resolution, expressing my disappointment in his vote for this unconstitutional resolution. I posted it on our blog. This was before I read curmudgeon's comment above indicating that Rep King couldn't even vote in support of his own hypocritical resolution. Now I have to a bit more to say to Rep. Hall!
December 13th, 2007 at 9:05 pmWhats really shocking about this story is that only NINE democrats apparently voted against this ridiculous bill?
Our founding fathers are turning over in their graves, and farting in the general direction of congress.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 9:02 pm
What's shocking, is a lunatic like you that thinks atheists are fanatics is criticizing all of those democratic politicians for basically saying EXACTLY the same things you say...
December 13th, 2007 at 9:10 pmAllow me to add to Rep. McDermitt's quote:
"While the Republicans are passing a resolution celebrating Christmas, they are voting in favor of torture and the president was vetoing health care for children."
December 13th, 2007 at 9:11 pm"While the Republicans are passing a resolution celebrating Christmas, the president was vetoing health care for children."
Sounds like a good campaign slogan for the Democrats!
December 13th, 2007 at 9:21 pmAnd never forget that Barney deserves better health care than 40 million Americans. Gives new meaning to "It's a dogs life."
December 13th, 2007 at 9:22 pmwhat a ridiculous spectacle congress has made of itself. How did the republican morons ever get control of the of the national dialoge - they're indescribable idiots.
December 13th, 2007 at 9:25 pm.
You’re out of your mind.
And you’re a liar. I said no such things and I’m getting sick of you coming in and attacking me in threads to spam the thread just because you got your a$$ kicked in another one.
You got a point to make then put up the quotes of mine that say what you claim I say or ki$$ my a$$.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 9:21 pm
You said atheists are fanatics, REPEATEDLY, please go review the thread, maybe you were off your meds?
You can RETRACT the accusation at this very moment, but someone that claims to be a religious expert, and doesn't understand greek root words isn't exactly an a$$ kicker, they're an EMBARRASSMENT and a LAUGHING STOCK!!! ROTFL!!
December 13th, 2007 at 9:27 pmGOPhers are total hypocrites.
December 13th, 2007 at 9:27 pmAnd by the way dumbass, ATHEOS is not greek.
Its LATIN.
It was translated from a Greek word that you can neither spell or pronounce.
So blow me.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
So it's a GREEK WORD - BAHAHA, like I said!! HYSTERICAL!!
Thanks for proving that your 'blow me' response is that of DESPERATION of being WRONG YET AGAIN!!! You make me laugh little man!
In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless".
December 13th, 2007 at 9:37 pmYou couldn’t handle the thread which is still open by the way, so you come in here and run your mouth about something that has nothing to do with this thread.
You want to get into the atheists\fanatic debate then go to the thread where its still going.
But quit spamming the thread you ignorant illiterate twit.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
Hey most people don't bother posting on OLD THREADS for weeks, except losers like you that are DESPERATE to have the LAST WORD even when you're proven wrong! You're such a sad little nerd!! You make me laugh fatboy!
December 13th, 2007 at 9:38 pmNo dumbass. Its a latin word, TRANSLATED from Greek.
Now like I said, stop pestering, and stop stalking me.
You want this debate, go back to thread where its going on.
But keep it the hell out of current threads.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 9:40 pm
No it's a GREEK WORD that was ABSORBED into latin, in the same way you could argue by your argument that it's not a latin word, but an ENGLISH WORD translated from Latin. But you'd be WRONG and show what an IGNORANT FOOL YOU WERE!! ROTFL!!!
December 13th, 2007 at 9:41 pmOh, and little 'tard, a TRANSLATION doesn't adopt a FOREIGN ROOT, it uses an indigenous one!!! ROTFL!!
December 13th, 2007 at 9:42 pmGee, what a surprise. “Think Progress†loves Muslims, but hates Christians and Jews. I think we already knew that.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 13, 2007 @ 9:40 pm
Ah, poor tard, didn't you get the memo? We're all secular humanist atheists that hate ALL OF YOU RELIGIOUS FOOLS EQUALLY!!! ROTFL!!!
December 13th, 2007 at 9:42 pmAlright.
I tried.
Enoughs enough.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 9:40 pm
Yeah, but you FAILED because YOU WERE WRONG, and too DUMB/IGNORANT/ARROGANT to admit it! You and Exley are TWO PEAS IN A POD, fatty!
December 13th, 2007 at 9:43 pmHey, seriously. Are you two done yet? You're both acting like spoiled 12 year olds. Take this to private email or just stop.
December 13th, 2007 at 9:45 pmGee, what a surprise. “Think Progress†loves Muslims, but hates Christians and Jews. I think we already knew that.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 13, 2007 @ 9:40 pm
Gee, what a surprise. You're still dumber than roadkill.
December 13th, 2007 at 9:45 pmLook over there at the shiny thing!
December 13th, 2007 at 9:52 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
Comment by republicans hate facts — December 13, 2007 @ 9:43 pm
Wow! Here when I saw another war on Xmas thread I thought it would be boring! Thanks guys, this is an early Xmas present.
December 13th, 2007 at 9:53 pmSo - Scoreboard is -
Repubs:
Torture Good.
One religion nation.
Sick kids worthless.
hmmmm....that ought to work well in November. Now if only there were some Dems with balls to use that, and everything else available.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:10 pmGee, what a surprise. “Think Progress†loves Muslims, but hates Christians and Jews. I think we already knew that.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 13, 2007 @ 9:40 pm
Only in your that tiny and claustrophobic space that once harbored a
thinking mind.
Nice try, chuckles. dangle.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:10 pmRep. Steve King is simply following his religious tenets. There was not a single care provider in 1 AD, why should the system change now? To complete the transition, he should reside in a stone house heated with a camel dung fueled campfire which would serve as well to cook his meals. No more Smithfield hams for the solstice dinner though.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:31 pmGee, what a surprise. “Think Progress†loves Muslims, but hates Christians and Jews. I think we already knew that.
Comment by cold_hard_left
O' great uninformed one:
http://manifestlyso.wordpress.com/2007/12/13/the-jewish-strawman/
I knew someone like you would be saying something like you did sometime today =P
December 13th, 2007 at 10:33 pmToday the Repubs voted in favor of Christmas and Torture.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:33 pmSo, they're "Pro Jesus" toand "Pro Torture".
It doesn't even enter in their pointy little heads that Jesus was tortured to death.
See, you fooled the real troll with your bickering. We know with chimp's endorsement of the NIE they would need something exciting to wake them out of their stupor.
Really guys, I suggest that a comment was misread and a salvo was fired. Let's shake hands and turn our energies back to more important stuff, for the sake of the trolls' education.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:35 pmLess than two weeks to go until the recently liberated* Christmas holiday and little Jimmy with the congenital medical condition can go suck some eggnog 'cause he ain't gonna be gettin' any of that socialized Hill'reh care now! MERRY CHRISTMAS mother fathers...
* The war on Christmas is over! Mission Accomplished!
December 13th, 2007 at 10:36 pmIt doesn’t even enter in their pointy little heads that Jesus was tortured to death.
Comment by OxyCon — December 13, 2007 @ 10:33 pm
If they ever really thought about it, Oxycon, those pointy little heads would simply implode in a puff of rancid, sooty smoke, leaving a terrible after odor that would linger for days.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:36 pmSIGN THE PETITION TO KEEP THE DEBATES OPEN!!
This week the Des Moines Register decided to exclude Congressman Dennis Kucinich from the Iowa debate -- despite the fact that he met all of their published criteria.
Senator Mike Gravel and Congressman Ron Paul have also faced debate exclusions as well.
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2489/t/5103/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=752
December 13th, 2007 at 10:40 pma resolution on christmas??? - has this guy got nothing better to do with his time? - time that tax dollars pays for
December 13th, 2007 at 10:45 pmGee, what a surprise. “Think Progress†loves Muslims, but hates Christians and Jews. -CHL
Well if George can hold their hand, why cant you?
December 13th, 2007 at 10:48 pmThe myth: All the founding fathers were Christians and America was founded on the Christian religion.
The facts: Most of the founding fathers were either deists or freethinkers who scorned Christianity.
A passage from the treaty with Tripoli, passed unanimously by the US Senate and signed by President Adams in 1797 sums it up well: "...The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."
December 13th, 2007 at 10:48 pmYou ruin every thread you find me in with your ridiculous debate and your utter illiteracy.
You think you know something about ancient languages but you know nothing. You know what you read in wiki, and you don’t even know that.
Keep your rabid foaming attacks off the other threads and grow up.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
I know enough to know that atheos (atheist) is a GREEK WORD, and that english derived from it, and its meaning, and that it doesn't mean the think you SAID it meant. I even proved you wrong using the webster's standard english dictionary. As for the wiki claim, PROJECT MUCH, lunatic boy, who's so 'tarded he doesn't know the difference between ADOPTING a word and TRANSLATING it? ROTFL!!!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:04 pmI’m sick of you a$$holes not being able to read. Scroll up dickhead. WHere did I start something with this c0cksucker? Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 9:48 pm
More projections there CRAIG? ROTFL!!
Bart, do us ALL a favor, and BECOME A REPUBLICAN NOW! It better fits your inability to grasp the english language (or Greek or Latin) or even COMMON SENSE! But your LASHING OUT because you can't handle being PROVEN WRONG is the BIGGEST REASON!!!
I was posting and this son of a b$tch comes in and attacks me. I told him to stop spamming the thread, and now you lop me into it like I did something. Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 9:48 pm
Actually YOU were attacking other democrats in congress that chose to attack secularism, I merely pointed out that you SHARED their failing - hypocrisy.
Well read next time stupid, before opening your big fat ignorant mouth. I’m sick of the f@#KING PILE ON, and being blamed for BEING STALKED.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 9:48 pm
Pointing out that you can't admit you're wrong, when it's topically relevant is STALKING YOU? You can add PARANOIA to the list of GOP traits you seem to possess in abundance there fatboy!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:07 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
Comment by republicans hate facts — December 13, 2007 @ 9:43 pm
Wow! Here when I saw another war on Xmas thread I thought it would be boring! Thanks guys, this is an early Xmas present.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — December 13, 2007 @ 9:53 pm
Well he may be a hypocrite, but you're a hypocritical fool that's too 'tarded to even know that you make Bart look like a genius! Ignorance is bliss, and child, you're the most blissful libertarian around! Ron Paul is calling you! He says DESTROY OUR SCHOOLS, can you hear his voices in the dumb little skull of yours yet?
December 13th, 2007 at 11:08 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 9:48 pm
Comment by republicans hate facts — December 13, 2007 @ 11:07 pm
I am available for marriage counseling, you two.
I mean, how is Lil B going to "shine the light of his Truth, Veritas Truth, RHF's Truth" on me if you guys keep this up?
Was that only a week ago? RHF, your inviatation to the Smackdown is in serious danger!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:11 pmWell he may be a hypocrite, but you’re a hypocritical fool that’s too ‘tarded to even know that you make Bart look like a genius!
Comment by republicans hate facts — December 13, 2007 @ 11:08 pm
And keltoi?
You can ki$$ my a$$.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 10:09 pm
Awwww...there ya go! I knew you kids could patch it up!
Group Cyber-hug everyone!
My work here is done.
Man, I am never skipping one of these war on Xmas threads again!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:15 pmYou’re following me around spamming threads, and you’re a liar.
Everything you said is a lie.
You’re a liar from the beginning.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:12 pm
Poor 'tard, you think WAY too much of yourself. If I wanted to follow you around, I'd just go back to that thread that I made a fool of you on, and that you won't STOP POSTING ON!!! ROTFL!!!
A liar like you shouldn't really call others out, when it's so obvious you're the one at fault.
Oh, and for a little LANGUAGE TUTORIAL, if atheos were translated to Latin, the prefix would be in producing intheos, not atheos...
You're such a BLATANT LIAR. You know NOTHING of religion, greek, latin or ANYTHING - FRANKLY! You sure you aren't a REPUBLICAN? ROTFL!!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:20 pmThe original word was greek, but the word “ATHEOS†is Latin, translated from the greek by Cicero in the first century BC.
And none of that has anything to do with my position that Atheism is a belief.
Atheism is a belief. It cannot prove its primary premise, that is there is no god, thus its a belief.
And since you’re too stupid to figure that out, I pointed you to the dictionary, which also says atheism is a belief.
And now, all you, and the other stooges are just a couple if illiterates arguing with the dictionary.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:18 pm
ROTFL!!! Atheos is a GREEK word, so it COULDN'T be a LATIN WRITER (CICERO) responsible for it!!! The greek is άθεος and it's not LATIN in origin, NOR is it translated. If it were, it would be INTHEOS - which would be a latin form...
Keep digging, child, you just make yourself look MORE and MORE STUPID! Just ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG, and a HYPOCRITE and we can move forward. Ok, tard?
December 13th, 2007 at 11:23 pmBartles, you've got Thom Hartmann on your side, I listened to him debate this for a while Tuesday morning.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:23 pmBut for X sakes, can't you lighten the fu(k up once in a while?
You’re an idiot.
Arguing with the dictionary.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:22 pm
You mean the Merriam Webster? Because IT says YOU ARE WRONG - 'tard!!! As does the GREEK LANGUAGE that DEFINED THE WORD!!
You're an idiot, little 'tard.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:25 pmPoor little bart thinks he's the expert, not the merriam-webster dictionary!!
Main Entry:
athe·ism Listen to the pronunciation of atheism
Pronunciation:
\ˈÄ-thÄ“-ËŒi-zÉ™m\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date:
1546
1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity
Sorry tard but a-theos means GODLESS, or WITHOUT THEOS (belief in god), whereas you claim it meant AGAINST THEOS, which in greek would be anti-theos (the greek meaning of a- and anti- are completely different).
But don't let the dictionary, or your lack of an understanding of the language you would HAVE TO HAVE MASTERED to be the person you claim to be stand in your way of making a fool of yourself!!! ROTFL!!!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:29 pmYou know Ruc, you’re a good guy, but you’re off in left field.
My getting irratated tonight is the cumulation of over 2 weeks and 2000 comments of a ridiculous debate with these fools, and now they’re following me to each and every thread I dare to go in, and just starting the debate all over again.
I dare to respond, and then all of you start piling on me, completely IGNORING them, and bashing me for daring to respond.
So why don’t you lighten the f$#k up on me once in a while?
I get zero help from any of you when I’m right and some idiots are debating me. Instead all I get is the pile on.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:26 pm
You FABRICATE the meaning of a word, I point out you're a liar, and you whine that everyone is pissed you're such a moron and a liar? Sorry, 'tard, but that's a product of YOUR RUDE BEHAVIOR!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:30 pmThe only to dictionaries of record for English are Merriam Webster and Oxford - but BOTH show you're a liar bart.
Oxford English Dictionary
atheism
/aythi-iz’m/
• noun the belief that God does not exist.
— DERIVATIVES atheist noun atheistic adjective atheistical adjective.
— ORIGIN from Greek a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:31 pmatheism [ˈeiθiizəm] noun: the belief that there is no God
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:31 pm
Which is the same thing as saying that they're GODLESS or don't BELIEVE IN GOD, which is the OPPOSITE of your previous claim that they were AGAINST THEISTS!!! MORON!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:32 pmYou know Ruc, you’re a good guy, but you’re off in left field.
I dare to respond, and then all of you start piling on me, completely IGNORING them, and bashing me for daring to respond.
So why don’t you lighten the f$#k up on me once in a while?
I get zero help from any of you when I’m right and some idiots are debating me. Instead all I get is the pile on.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:26 pm
YEAH, RUC, he was feeling so stalked and persecuted and picked on last night he had to go on a 10 post riff where he was referring to himself in the 3rd person. Back him up or else he'll bust out another personality or 5.
Which may or may not include RHF.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:33 pmBart can't lighten up, or he'll lose his godliness, his righteousness, his hold on All That's True. His foolish generalizations got him his ass handed to him on a plate, but, damn it, he will be right! No matter what! Not to mention some pretty good anger management issues. He never knows when he's been beaten.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:33 pmatheism noun:1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God [ant: theism]
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:32 pm
Yes, but not you claimed that it was always a DOCTRINE, this says "OR", thereby DISPROVING YOUR CLAIM!
Ready to admit defeat? Or are you going to CONTINUE to be a MORON that doesn't know what OR means?
December 13th, 2007 at 11:33 pmYEAH, RUC, he was feeling so stalked and persecuted and picked on last night he had to go on a 10 post riff where he was referring to himself in the 3rd person. Back him up or else he’ll bust out another personality or 5.
Which may or may not include RHF.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — December 13, 2007 @ 11:33 pm
STFU 'tard! You're in no position to talk about others being crazy and persecuted, you CONSTANTLY WHINE about me persecuting you like a 12 year old little girl!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:34 pma·the·ism –noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:34 pm
Still not comprehending the meaning of the word OR bart?
ROTFL!!! And you claim to understand religious doctrine! No wonder you're such a rude little twirp!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:35 pmatheism [(ay-thee-iz-uhm)] Denial that there is a God.
American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:29 pm
here's another plateful of ass for you, Bart, cooked up by your very own self. Are you really seriously giving Mr. P a run for the roses?
December 13th, 2007 at 11:36 pmSorry, ‘tard, but that’s a product of YOUR RUDE BEHAVIOR!
Comment by republicans hate facts — December 13, 2007 @ 11:30 pm
OH MY GOD!!!
Now I have read it all.
Lil B is feeling outnumbered and persecuted on TP, and RHF is chastising someone for RUDE BEHAVIOR!!!
Good Night guys. The offer of marriage counseling is still open.
GRIN.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:37 pma·the·ism : The doctrine that there is no God or gods
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:36 pm
That's ONE MEANING of the word, not the ONLY MEANING, which was your claim.
This STILL PROVES you're just cherry picking second tier sources to support your fanatic claims...
December 13th, 2007 at 11:37 pmOH MY GOD!!!
Now I have read it all.
Lil B is feeling outnumbered and persecuted on TP, and RHF is chastising someone for RUDE BEHAVIOR!!!
Good Night guys. The offer of marriage counseling is still open.
GRIN.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — December 13, 2007 @ 11:37 pm
Who's CHASTISING? Stop projecting again, whiny little girl. I merely pointed out that there's a CONSEQUENCE to rude behavior, especially when it's unwarranted. See, that's why I only use it to people like 'you' that act in a 'tarded way, or against Bart. Neither of you realize that you've already BEEN RUDE, and you receive my posts BECAUSE of that...
Marriage counseling? ROTFL!!! Poor little 'craiger', just another GOP self loathing closet case. That explains why you're such a clueless moron that acts like a little girl! Come out of the closet, stop hating yourself, and maybe you won't be such an ignorant @ss there, GIRLFRIEND!! ROTFL!!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:40 pmYea.
Having ones argument stated word for word in half a dozen English dictionary’s amounts to having ones “ass handed to themâ€.
Another f@$#king idiot who can’t read.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:38 pm
Actually your argument was that atheism IS a doctrine AGAINST RELIGIONS- PERIOD, whereas the dictionary does not say it IS a doctrine 'THAT DOESN't BELIEVE' and even then it says it's EITHER a DOCTRINE or a BELIEF - so NO YOU DID NOT SEE YOUR ARGUMENT IN THE DICTIONARY - and in FACT THE DICTIONARY POSTS HERE DEBUNK YOUR CLAIM!!
You're just TOO ILLITERATE, TOO STUPID and TOO DISHONEST TO ADMIT IT!!!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:42 pmWhen you fanatical atheists can prove your primary contention, that a god or gods do not exist, then you will graduate from a belief based system, to a fact based system.
And not one minute before.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:41 pm
Ah, poor 'tard, see THAT'S YOUR PROBLEM! You don't have to prove a negative, that's a logical fallacy! When you produce ANY EVIDENCE that PROVES GOD EXISTS, then you can graduate from a BELIEF SYSTEM into the RATIONAL WORLD!! ROTFL!!!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:43 pmOh, and BART, SANTA SAYS YOU'VE BEEN BAD, and you CAN'T PROVE HE WON'T PUNISH YOU FOR IT!!
ROTFL!!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:44 pmBut as long as your “belief system†makes claims it cannot prove, then it will remain a belief system.
Just like the dictionary says it is.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:42 pm
Your "belief system" says you believe there is a God, despite NO EVIDENCE of this - stop projecting your DOCTRINE, JUST LIKE THE DICTIONARY SAYS!!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:45 pmAnd btw, thanks for bringing in your pet poodle, the one you call RHF.
This rabid little runt proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, that atheists are as fanatical as the overly religious loons out there.
No difference whatsoever.
:\
Cept the religious folk tend to be more likable.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:44 pm
That b!tch is yours, just has irrational, stupid and hateful as you are!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:46 pmFor the rest of us, who don’t need labels to define us, and don’t require belief systems to structure our thought processes around, atheists are just as rabid and fanatical as the religious fundamentalists.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:46 pm
UNLABELED is a LABEL - MORON!!! ROTFL!!!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:46 pmYeah for McDermott, he is my representative from West Seattle, and he enjoys a 89% approval rating for good reason.
Buck Fush
December 13th, 2007 at 11:46 pm"The fact is if you deny the existence of god, then you “BELIEVE†god does not exist.
You can not prove it, so you merely have a belief."
Comment by BARTLEBEE
Athiests "believe" in the observable, and the quantifiable. Is that a spiritual belief? Athiests will bow to the unknown, but never to the unknowable.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:47 pmYou shouldn't lecture others on being fanatical, when you claimed that atheism is an anti-theist doctrine, and that the word atheist meant anti-theist (a lie)...
Sorry, but YOU are the fanatic bart... A LYING, IGNORNAT FANATIC!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:47 pmatheists are just as rabid and fanatical as the religious fundamentalists.
Comment by BARTLEBEE
Oh my goodness, not the nut case with his rants again, Bart you are F'ing mental.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:47 pmAthiests “believe†in the observable, and the quantifiable. Is that a spiritual belief? Athiests will bow to the unknown, but never to the unknowable.
Comment by barfly — December 13, 2007 @ 11:47 pm
Whereas Bart will NEVER BOW, even when you PROVE HE'S WRONG AND IGNORANT!! ROTFL!!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:48 pmMaybe there's just something about politics all us surfs just don't git.
/sarcasm
December 13th, 2007 at 11:50 pmWhen atheism can prove its primary contention, that a god or gods do not exist, then it will rise from the belief system it is, to the realm of fact based systems.
But until it can prove its contention, its just another belief system invented by lazy minds who cannot live with uncertainty.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:47 pm
So you're back to the logical fallacy that atheists should be required to prove something that has no proof of existence. To not believe in something without proof isn't fanaticism or doctrine (other than the doctrine of rational thinking).
Since you don't seem to understand what rational thinking is, it is understandable that you'd say something this LAZY because you can't deal with the fact that rational thought comes to a conclusion against your DOCTRINE...
December 13th, 2007 at 11:50 pmgive it up guys engaging Bart, this nut case will spend 2 or 3 days, (recently too) on his mental crap.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:51 pmFor f_ck's sake, why don't you both shut up?
December 13th, 2007 at 11:51 pmObserve class, the rabid, ranting foaming at the mouth lunacy of the rabid atheist.
This one should be in a cage.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:48 pm
Observe class, the rabid, ranting foaming at the mouth lunacy of the rabid hypocritical RELIGIOUS FANATIC that as I pointed out is in no position to condemn Congressional Democrats. This one should be in a cage!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:51 pmNotice how he cracks up and starts with the name calling, I'm telling you he is touched in the head, and just seeing this mental patient on gives me good reason to go clean something in the house, anything but his mental breakdown again.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:52 pmgive it up guys engaging Bart, this nut case will spend 2 or 3 days, (recently too) on his mental crap.
Comment by Buckie Boy — December 13, 2007 @ 11:51 pm
Yeah, that's why I stopped posting on the other thread, he's a wingnut in classic republican/religious fanatic style. No logic, no rational thoughts and no capacity to debate or admit when he's proven wrong.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:52 pmYou stupid freaking democrats piss me off. All you want is the fed to come in, provide health care for you and every other person you can possibly sign up. And to top it off, you come here and take my money to do it!
Listen, if you want health care for kids, fine. Raise the taxes in your STATE, or find some other freaking way to pay for it.
And while I am on the subject of health care, your stupid a$$hole candidates for the most part want UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE. Ya, sure, lets raise taxes! Lets go spend some money that we don't even have! No problem! That is the most retarded bull$hit bandaid to a problem I have ever seen. Why don't we stop the big pharm lobbying, and stop letting them hike up the cost of drugs to the point where you NEED the gov't to pay for it?? Brilliant! I can buy my insulin, over the counter, for half of the price 5 hours north. Insulin made in the same factory as the stuff I used to buy here.
When the government steps in and says it is going to take care of something, I would suggest the "run like hell" approach instead of the current one most of this country embraces. FEMA. IRS. No Child Left Behind. Homeland Security. I could go on...
December 13th, 2007 at 11:53 pmFor f_ck’s sake, why don’t you both shut up?
Comment by Zooey — December 13, 2007 @ 11:51 pm
Sorry, but in a thread about the religious takeover of government, I feel I have a right to defend atheists. Perhaps you don't. Your right..
December 13th, 2007 at 11:53 pmNotice how the loser atheist resorts to labeling his opponent, who is not religious, religious.
Because the poor rube’s a$$ has been shoved so far up his throat, that he can’t do anything other than lie.
Because he’s a liar.
Like all you pieces of sh$t are.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:53 pm
You're either theist (religious) or atheist (unreligious) - PERIOD!!
As for you attacking all of the progressives, thanks for showing your true colors there republican troll!
ROTFL!!!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:54 pmBecause the poor rube’s a$$ has been shoved so far up his throat, that he can’t do anything other than lie.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:53 pm
I'm not the one that can't read merriam-webster/oxford dictionary, or who didn't know the etymology and meaning of the word being used!!
Sorry tard, but either you're a theist or an atheist - PERIOD!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:55 pmBucket Boy’s too ignorant to read who started this.
RHF’s too much of a pu$$y to hang in the actual thread, so he has to spam this one up with it.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:54 pm
Hey, I corrected you on that thread, it's not my fault that you keep posting on NEW THREADS on topics based on YOUR HYPOCRISY!
December 13th, 2007 at 11:56 pmAnd when the pu$$y named RHF can’t handle the facts, he resorts to lies, like labeling me religous, or claiming I’m attacking ALL PROGRESSIVESâ€.
Because he’s a liar.
Was from day one.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:57 pm
You're either a theist, or an atheist - as these are the only two groupings possible. You can be subgrouped as an agnostic as you've self described yourself - but that's still a theist as it has its own doctrine.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:58 pmThe only thing progressive about RHF, is his dementia.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:57 pm
Ah, more projecting from the old-timer...
December 13th, 2007 at 11:58 pmBut thats fine.
Since no ones minds him attacking me in every thread I go in to bring up a debate that he couldn’t handle in another thread, where he and three other idiots like him ganged up on me for 2 weeks, then I’m sure no one minds me taking all the time I need to to respond.
Right FAIZ?
Right fellow TP’rs??
Everyones glad to see this, and any other thread I happen to go in turn into this.
Right?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:59 pm
I've attacked you in EVERY THREAD? ROTFL!!
Paranoid, dishonest and prone to exaggeration - yep YOU ARE A RELIGIOUS REPUBLICAN!!! ROTFL!!
December 14th, 2007 at 12:00 amComment by cpuenvy — December 13, 2007 @ 11:53 pm
well, if you weren't such an idiot, you'd see that universal health care, done right, would lower your taxes, but you're obviously a republican, and can't see past your next nickel.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:01 amBecause RHF, Dim Wit, Bucket Boy, and the rest, are going to make sure it does.
So who am I to care?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:59 pm
Since it's YOU that INSISTS ON CALLING ATHEISTS/ATHEISM fanatics, had it ever dawned on you that you had labeled yourself as an EXTREMIST and that maybe you'd brought this on yourself?
Or do we care to add that favorite GOP trait of mine of PLAYING THE VICTIM when VICTIMIZING OTHERS? ROTFL!!
December 14th, 2007 at 12:01 amWhen does the floorshow start? This is getting tedious.
Where's my waitress?
December 14th, 2007 at 12:03 amYou stupid freaking democrats piss me off.
Comment by cpuenvy — December 13, 2007 @ 11:53 pm
You fascist Bush bootlickers make me sick. You support torture, breaking the law, war crimes, corrupting the government, removing the Bill of Rights, and destroying the Constitution. And dragging this good country down to the dark depths of fascism.
I fought and bled for this country, and swore an oath to defend the Constitution. You support the destruction of that same Constitution.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:04 amSo lets see, Bart posted in the O'Reilly thread, did I 'attack' our little wimp there? Nope!
Bart posted on the thread before that on the NIE, did I 'attack' our little wimp there? Nope!
Yet according to our PROFESSIONAL VICTIM BART, I attack him ON EVERY THREAD!!!
Sorry Bart, but 100% DISHONEST YET AGAIN, old timer!
Is that the dementia that makes you incapable of remembering what happened TODAY on THE PREVIOUS TWO THREADS?
ROTFL!!
December 14th, 2007 at 12:04 amThe fact is ATHEISM claims god does not exist.
Doubt this then go to any atheist website out there. Its plastered all over them.
But, they cannot PROVE this claim.
Thus, they’re a belief.
And all the inbred illiterate backwoods idiots like these knuckleheads is going to change that.
When they can prove it, then they’ll be a fact based system.
And not one second before.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:02 am
Actually it's YOU that kept saying that the DICTIONARY dictates the meaning of the word, and it says that atheists BELIEVE (that's the word, NOT CLAIM). Are you saying that if they BELIEVE SOMETHING and come to that BELIEF because there are NO FACTS that point to ANY OTHER BELIEVE, then they're FANATICS, but YOU AREN'T?
Oh, bart, you're not the brightest bulb are you old-timer?
December 14th, 2007 at 12:06 amAnd like fanatical theists, A-theists must turn to fanatical lies, like this poor demented fool here, who must paint me a religious republican, even though I’ve stated for 2 years I don’t believe, nor disbelieve in a god.
Thats because he lost the debate, has nothing, and must invent lies so he has something to argue against.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:04 am
You either believe that there is a god, or you don't. To say you believe there 'might' be a god, is just a WEAK VERSION OF THEISM - it's STILL A RELIGIOUS BELIEF.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:07 amGeez, so this thread is about that fscked up Atheism argument again, now....
ok, I'm off for the night then.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:08 amAnd everyone of my so called “friends†in here who ignores that this slug has been following me around starting trouble, and demands I just “shut upâ€, can ki$$ my rosy red a$$ too.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:07 am
Last time I checked, YOU WERE THE SLUG that STARTED THIS FIGHT BY CALLING ALL ATHEISTS FANATICS. But that's OK, don't confuse YOUR BIGOTRY and YOUR FANATICISM with VICTIMIZING OTHERS while CRYING VICTIM - after all, why would you want to ADMIT YOU WERE ACTING LIKE A REPUBLICAN?
December 14th, 2007 at 12:09 amATHEISM is a belief.
So says the dictionary.
So says the atheists themselves.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:08 am
A belief or a lack of belief are both beliefs, learn english.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:09 ama·the·ism –noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:09 am
Your WHINE wasn't that atheists had a belief (YOU HAVE A BELIEF THAT GOD MIGHT EXIST - MAKING YOU A FANATIC), your whine was that Athiests were ANTI-RELIGIOUS because of their beliefs - but then again SO ARE YOU.
Stop projecting your crap on others, because of your own guilt on this.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:11 amWhen they can prove it, then they’ll be a fact based system.
And not one second before.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:02 am
And when you finally grow up and understand logic, you'll be able to see the ass-backwardness of your claims, and how wrong you are. Until then, you are propogating your ignorant opinion as established fact. You have a lot to learn, and seem dead set against learning anything. look around, and see no god. Travel to the ends of the earth, or into space, and see no god. Listen with all your might, and hear no god. If that isn't enough for you, then your belief system is the problem. You believe that atheists believe, but you can't prove it; you have only opinions, and dictionaries don't agree with each other, so that's a poor source for your belief system. You don't like atheists? Just say so, never mind all the posturing and the absolutism. Admit your bias, and get on with your life. Atheists will be fine without you, as they are without gods.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:11 amThe following definition of Atheism was given to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963), to remove reverential Bible reading and oral unison recitation of the Lord’s Prayer in the public schools. Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:12 am
So ALL ATHEISTS meet the SAME DEFINITION, just like ALL AGNOSTICS and ALL CHRISTIANS do?
ROTFL! You're a bigoted, biased fool.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:14 amAnd lefty idiot?
When you finally grow up and learn how to read, come see me.
But not until.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:13 am
Ironic from the 'tard that FALSELY claimed that atheist meant anti-theist!!
ROTFL!!
December 14th, 2007 at 12:14 amIn' Bart's world, ANYONE BUT HIM that HAS A BELIEF is a FANATIC!!
ROTFL!!
December 14th, 2007 at 12:15 amBart, if you want to STOP BEING AN IGNORANT FOOL, why don't you start with that wiki site you have so little respect for. It'll at least help you realize what an ignorant bigot you are if you take the time to READ IT and REALIZE HOW WRONG YOU ARE!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
December 14th, 2007 at 12:17 amSo says you.
A few BILLION people say otherwise, and you’re an ignorant putz to dismiss their testimonies so casually.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:15 am
They DO? What EVIDENCE do those billions have for the existence of God again? Their BELIEF doesn't count - ROTFL!!
December 14th, 2007 at 12:18 am“Progressives†like to assert that the United States is in no way a Christian Nation. The harder they fight to assert their point, the more ridiculous they appear to the mainstream of America. Fine by me. The more ridiculous “progressives†appear, the less likely they are able to be effective in any other of their political endeavors.
I’d like a debate moderator to ask the Democrat candidates for President what they think of this issue and watch the waffling begin!
Comment by O. Bigfoot — December 14, 2007 @ 12:12 am
bigfoot, your foolish claim of a christian nation puts you at odds with the Founders and the Constitution, the result being that you are a poor citizen, a hater of America, a theocratic fascist, and one of the primary reasons America grows weaker on the world stage, laughed at by civilized peoples, defeated in battle by the weakest of opponents, insulted by nations abandoning the dollar, and pointed to as a savage, backwards nation of torturers and bigots. Fortunately, you are in the minority, and will soon be completely powerless and irrelevant, and the Christians can go back to worshipping n private, and stop forcing their superstitions down everybody else's throats, in spite of the fact that so few of them live by Christ's teachings. You are a prime example of someone Christ would not recognize as his follower.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:18 amBart dismisses atheists on the basis that billions of theists are entitled to their opinion, but the FEWER ATHEISTS SHOULDN'T HAVE THEIRS based on FACTS and RATIONAL THINKING!! ROTFL!!
December 14th, 2007 at 12:18 amI don’t believe there is a god.
I don’t disbelieve there is a god.
In fact Lefty, the only thing I do believe at this moment is that you and the other stooges are a bunch illiterate uneducated twits.
:D
I believe that.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:18 am
Which is a BELIEF that there MIGHT BE A GOD - a FORM OF SKEPTIC THEISM. Poor 'tard, you don't even know you're A FANATIC BY YOUR OWN UNEDUCATED DEFINITION!! You POOR ILLITERATE UNEDUCATED TWIT THAT CAN'T READ A DICTIONARY!! ROTFL!!
December 14th, 2007 at 12:20 amPoor Bart doesn't realize he's A FANATIC by HIS DEFINITION!
Oxford English Dictionary
agnostic
/agnostik/
• noun a person who believes that nothing can be known concerning the existence of God.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:21 amWhen you people stop dissing the belief systems of billions of people, then you’ll earn some respect.
Until then, you’re just as rabid and looney as the far religous right.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:20 am
So being an atheist isn't permitted, because it 'disses' the belief system of others? Well what about the billion of Christians that 'dis' other religions? Or what about AGNOSTICS like you that 'dis' all other religions because you DON'T BELIEVE THEM?
ROTFL!!! You poor projecting little fool!
December 14th, 2007 at 12:23 amThe meaning of a-theism is without belief in God. The opposite of theism.
Charles Bradlaugh, Britain's most important crusader for atheism, upheld a similar position, noting that "no position is more continuously misrepresented" than atheism. Bradlaugh stated: "Atheism is without God. It does not assert no God."
from The Freethinker's Text-Book (London, 1876) by Charles Bradlaugh
December 14th, 2007 at 12:23 amWayne, didn't you know you can't have ANY DEFINITION or BELIEFS as an ATHEIST that don't match what BART PERMITS?
ROTLF!!! What an arrogant little prick he is!
December 14th, 2007 at 12:25 amA few BILLION people say otherwise, and you’re an ignorant putz to dismiss their testimonies so casually.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:15 am
In spite of the fact that not a single one of those billions has the slightest idea of who or what god is, nor can they show him, her or it to me, or you. it seems the ignorant putzes might outnumber me by billions, if I were as"right" as you. However, I don't deny them or you your beliefs, I merely reject them for myself, because there is no god. It's quite simple, but obviously over your head. I know not to believe, and yet you would insist that that knowledge constitutes a "belief system". You are the ignorant putz. And you have very little self-control.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:25 amSee?
Observe the rabid foaming fanatical atheist, desperately trying to paint me as some sort of believer.
To the fanatical atheist, everyone must accept a belief, like him.
Everyone must “take sides†in their war on theism.
To the rabid, fanatical atheist, admitting you do not know is a fanatical belief.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:23 am
ROTFL!!! Yeah, it's not like you've been doing that for DAYS against ATHEIST!!! ROTFL!!! You're so NATURAL at PROJECTING YOUR ACTIONS ON OTHERS, were you raised HIGHLY RELIGIOUS? You do this SO NATURALLY!!! LOL!
December 14th, 2007 at 12:26 amWhen a man admits he does not know something, the fanatics just cannot stand it.
Because it opens the possiblity that maybe they don’t know either.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:25 am
So you don't believe - therefore you're a fanatic by your definition.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:26 amWow, just read in depth the last hundred posts or so….I was pretty amazed at the harsh infighting amongst the libs….your just as ruthless with each other as you are with me! Now I don’t feel so special anymore….awwww shucks…
Comment by O. Bigfoot — December 14, 2007 @ 12:25 am
Bart isn't really a progressive, he's a closet republican like you - that's why he's getting whacked on... Don't worry, he deserves it as much as you do on this case...
December 14th, 2007 at 12:27 amHahaha! My comments stop being posted!
That is because sites like this like to keep the dems vs repub fight going. Because bullshit like that keeps sites like this going.
Democracy at work! pfft.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:28 amHahaha! My comments stop being posted!
That is because sites like this like to keep the dems vs repub fight going. Because bullshit like that keeps sites like this going.
Democracy at work! pfft.
Comment by cpuenvy — December 14, 2007 @ 12:28 am
Actually dissent is democracy at work, what you want is called FASCISM...
December 14th, 2007 at 12:29 amWhen a man admits he does not know something, the fanatics just cannot stand it.
Because it opens the possiblity that maybe they don’t know either.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:25 am
So you don’t believe - therefore you’re a fanatic by your definition.
Comment by republicans hate facts — December 14, 2007 @ 12:26 am
It could also be that a man is a coward who is afraid to admit the truth to himself, or it might mean that a man is too stupid or lazy to think it through and come to a conclusion. It might mean a few things. It certainly doesn't mean that all atheists are fanatics.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:30 amSo says you.
You have neither examined the claims of billions, nor have you examined the thousands of years of historical supporting evidence, endless volumes of historical records, texts, codices, etc.
Hundreds of millions, even billions of people have professed to having communicated with a deity in one way or another.
Just because it hasn’t happened to you, doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened to at least one of them, if not millions of them.
The fact is you have no personal knowledge or proof of the existence of god, so you casually dismiss billions of your fellow man as loons, in light of your own puny lifes experience.
Well to those of us who admit we just don’t know one way or the other, you BOTH look like fanatics, propped up by rigid belief systems that neither of you seem to be able to prove.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:29 am
So says science. There are just as much historical evidence of leprechauns and fairies, but most sane people don't believe in them for the SAME REASON. There's NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to prove it. And LOGIC dictates that a GOD that's SO CONCERNED WITH PROVING and SENDING WORD to us that he'd commit his own flesh and blood would have also bothered to PROVE THIS in a way that would HOLD UP SCIENTIFICALLY. That whole FAITH THING is the COP-OUT of the UNSCIENTIFIC MIND. No different than those that believe in leprechauns, and SANTA like YOU!!!
December 14th, 2007 at 12:32 amThus you both have “BELIEF SYSTEMSâ€, and the rest of us just don’t know.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:30 am
As do YOU, your BELIEF SYSTEM is just as ingrained in you as these posts show - and from what I see MORE FANATICAL than MOST!
December 14th, 2007 at 12:32 amAs I told your illiterate, ADHD self 2 weeks ago the very first day of this stupid debate, I could care less if you call me fanatic or not. Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:33 am
Convenient, because you ARE ONE, and that's the problem!
The word itself does not necessarily constitute a negative. For example, someone falling off a ship in the middle of the ocean, would do well to be fanatical about treading water. Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:33 am
Actually they'd have to be RELIABLE, fanatic might cause them to drown from overexertion - just like you've done here!
So calling me fanatical about admitting I do not know, fanatical about not making conclusions until the facts are in, is fine with me. In fact, I welcome the label. Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:33 am
Another situation that demonstrates your ignorance and cluelessness.
Fanatical is all relative. And what I meant when I said it was simple and clear. Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:33 am
No FANATICAL isn't relative, only a FANATIC would believe that.
Both the theists, and atheists are fanatics, because you both make claims you cannot prove.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:33 am
So do you. You claim that you believe there COULD be a god or might not be a god, that's no different that believing there isn't one. The difference is that your claim is simultaneously cowardly and dismissive.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:37 amSince when does admitting you don’t know something, constitute a “belief�
Is this more dogma from your Atheists belief handbook?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:36 am
It's a BELIEF that you don't have enough information or facts or evidence to make your mind. It's still a belief.
What, did you get this avoidance of your BELIEFS from your AGNOSTICS HANDBOOK for PEDANTIC SENILE FAT OLD MEN?
December 14th, 2007 at 12:38 amI mean if you want to call “not knowing†a belief system, then fine with me.
Hell you can call it a stereo system if that turns your crank.
Whatever gobbldygook you atheists speak is fine with me.
:|
I’m tolerant of all belief systems.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:37 am
Actually you aren't tolerant of atheist belief systems or religious people, because tolerance isn't a word that's compatible with fanaticism - even if you're too IGNORANT to know it.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:39 amDamn has this become tired or what?
December 14th, 2007 at 12:41 amNo.
I claim I don’t know if theres a god or not. I have no more evidence to support the notion that there is a god, than that there isn’t one.
I simply do not know.
But like I said, if you want to call “not knowing†a belief system, thats fine with me.
If thats what your belief system tells you not knowing something equals, then go for it.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:40 am
So either believing or not believing something that has no scientific evidence is fanaticism, but not believing (knowing) even when there's no scientific evidence isn't fanaticism in your world?
You yourself said there was all of this RELIGIOUS EVIDENCE, yet despite that you don't believe? ROTFL!!! Then that TRULY makes you an ARROGANT FANATIC that thinks you KNOW MORE than the RELIGIONS YOU BELIEVE HAVE EVIDENCE!!!
You just keep digging your grave deeper 'tard!
December 14th, 2007 at 12:42 amWow, just read in depth the last hundred posts or so….I was pretty amazed at the harsh infighting amongst the libs….your just as ruthless with each other as you are with me! Now I don’t feel so special anymore….awwww shucks…
Comment by O. Bigfoot — December 14, 2007 @ 12:25 am
You're not special at all, Bigfoot. You're just another unthinking tool. It must be very frustrating to you that you're largely being ignored on this thread, no matter how stupid and irrelevant your comment may be. Once these two get their teeth into one another even your childish attempts to derail the discussion will be met with ultimate failure.
Take this opportunity to read some history so you can begin to grasp one essential fact: the Founders of this great nation could see people like you coming a mile away, and did their best to insulate the new country from religious dogmatism and attempts to create an "official" religion. This is not, thank God, a "Christian" nation. It is a nation of free-thinkers, thanks to the lucky coincidence that it was founded when such people abounded in positions of influence. They created a system designed to keep people like you from dragging the rest of us back into the caves, or the catacombs.
If you want to call yourself Christian, fine. Feel free. But you don't get to rewrite history and claim that the United States of America is "Christian". God bless Jefferson and Franklin and Paine and Allen and Washington and Adams for their intelligence, their perception and their genius. They created a nation that has survived the constant attempts of troglodytes like you to destroy the freedoms of Americans.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:43 amThe United States is most definately a Christian nation. The overwhelming majority of our elected leaders have always believed so, and they once again proved it yesterday. You lost, the majority won.
Get used to it.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — December 14, 2007 @ 12:40 am
Really? Then why did we SIGN INTO LAW a treaty within a few years of founding the nation which explicitly says "THE US IS NO WAY A CHRISTIAN NATION"?
ROTFL!!! You're HYSTERICAL!!!
December 14th, 2007 at 12:44 amI’m tolerant of all belief systems.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:37 am
You're tolerant of nothing if it doesn't agree with your own narrow and ill-defined fanatacism. Most of the time you have some facts to angrily spew if somebody has the temerity to disagree with the Great God Bartlebee, but on this subject you've come up only with opinions. A long list, to be sure, but opinions nonetheless. You can never win this one, as much as it pains you, because you are wrong about your basic point. And your claim that all believers and all non-believers are fanatics is ignorant, bigoted and baseless. You are more fanatical than most, in spite of your lazy, cowardly fence-sitting. Most agnostics I know have the maturity to admit that they're afraid to take a position. You lack that courage.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:45 amThe United States is most definately a Christian nation. The overwhelming majority of our elected leaders have always believed so, and they once again proved it yesterday. You lost, the majority won.
Get used to it.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — December 14, 2007 @ 12:40 am
Your ignorance of history is truly astonishing, and yet you lecture others for their "ignorance". There is NOTHING in the founding documents, nor in the profusion of supporting letters and essays to support your mindless contention that this is a "Christian" nation. It is nothing of the kind. References to the Creator reflect Deism not Christianity, but you would not know this because you haven't bothered to learn a damn thing since grade school.
Repeat it all you want, but it is not true, and any honest student of American history could demonstrate it to you. Except, of course, you refuse to learn a damn thing.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:46 amSo if I don’t know something, then I “believe I don’t know�
You mean I don’t “know†I don’t know?
:\
Because I’m pretty sure I don’t know….. but… you’re really smart… and you say I don’t know….. so….
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:45 am
If you don't disbelieve something, that's just a cowardly way to believe it without knowing the specifics of WHAT you believe. Then again, you ARE A COWARD!
December 14th, 2007 at 12:47 amI forget that to be a “progressive†in some folks eyes requires one to deny the existance of God.
Foolishness, yes. But hey, it’s your funeral….
Comment by O. Bigfoot — December 14, 2007 @ 12:47 am
You're as wrong as wrong can be, as usual, but hey, it's your funeal. and it will be the end, by the way. Nothing afterwards, no soup for you.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:49 amYou can always spot an idiot troll like RHF.
To him, simply acknowledging something somehow constitutes endorsing it.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:47 am
Your whole diatribe was that if people had a belief, they're fanatics, yours is STILL A BELIEF. Stop trolling, stop projecting, fool.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:50 amIt does seem that way, doesn’t it?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:48 am
Well, there you go. Bart finally found someone he could talk to.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:50 amHmmm…I seem to remember Bart and I getting into it quite often, he seem liberal enough to me. I forget that to be a “progressive†in some folks eyes requires one to deny the existance of God.
Foolishness, yes. But hey, it’s your funeral….
Comment by O. Bigfoot — December 14, 2007 @ 12:47 am
It doesn't require it, but it does require that you accept people that do - just as our founding fathers did. That's something both you and bart seem incapable of doing - very unamerican traits in BOTH of you!
December 14th, 2007 at 12:51 amFoolishness, yes. But hey, it’s your funeral….
Comment by O. Bigfoot — December 14, 2007 @ 12:47 am
Congratulations, you've redefined stubborn ignorance and stupidity. Please demonstrate which portions of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights define this as a Christian nation. Otherwise, go to your room.
And, while you're at it, you have still failed to provide a scintilla of evidence that American-style waterboarding is any different than the waterboarding defined by the war crimes trials after WWII as torture. You made the claim and whenever you're asked to defend the claim, you run and hide like the coward you're proven yourself to be.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:51 amI feel should these guys win, and beat you neocons out of the office, where your religous tests of office are required for entrance into the fold, that we’ll just be trading one tyrannical group for another.
A fanatical group of anti religious loons, easily as fanatical and dangerous as you right wing religous loons ever were.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:50 am
ROTFL! More paranoia from the FANATIC! Sorry, just because YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO THIS, don't blame it on others! You really don't think atheists are USED to living with religious wingnuts like you?
December 14th, 2007 at 12:52 amSigned by John Adams, and passing the Congress unanimously.
Treaty of Tripoli, article 11
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen..."
Sorry O.Bigmouth, but THIS TREATY is part of AMERICAN LAW
December 14th, 2007 at 12:54 amNo? You responded…thank you very much!
Comment by O. Bigfoot — December 14, 2007 @ 12:52 am
I was bored. But if this is the sort of validation you require, feel free to keep posting your bloviation. Some day, maybe you'll be able to provide some sort of evidence. I'm not holding my breath, of course, because you're more into the running away and hiding.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:54 amNo you festering carbuncle on the anus of illiteracy, if you’d try reading the first 3000 times I posted my whole “diatribe†you’d it stated that people who MAKE CLAIMS THEY CANNOT PROVE are FANATICAL.
Like you.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:52 am
You make claims that there MIGHT be a god, so if god doesn't exist, then there's NO WAY THIS COULD EVER BE PROVEN - making you a hypocrite, because you make a claim that can't be proven.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:55 amThe fact is religion, AND anti religion, have about as much business in our government as RHF has in a library.
The two just do not go together.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:54 am
See 'tard, you're doing EXACTLY the thing that got you in trouble before, and I gave you an opportunity to LURN, but you're just too 'tarded to lurn. You confuse anti-religious (anti-theism) and a-religious (atheism).
Buy a dictionary, take some language courses, and STOP BEING SO BLASTED STUPID!
December 14th, 2007 at 12:56 amThomas Jefferson- 3rd president, Drafted Declaration of Independence, Signer of Constitution, influential on 1st Amendment
"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies."
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." [Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823]
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own" [Letter to H. Spafford, 1814].
"...an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, 'Jesus Christ...the holy author of our religion,' which was rejected 'By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.'" [Jefferson's Biography]
If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God.
December 14th, 2007 at 1:02 am-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814, using the term atheist to mean one who lacks a god belief, not one who is without morals, as was a common use of the term in Jefferson's day
Bigfoot, I'll make it easy for you. You can start here.
I realize it would be too much to suggest you crack a book, so I've offered a link to Jefferson's thoughts on religion and on the founding of this great nation. Feel free, of course, to allow your own blinkered ignorance to prevent you from comprehending a word he wrote. It's what we all expect of you.
December 14th, 2007 at 1:03 amNo.
The only claim I make is that I do not know.
Is it possible theres a god, and things we cannot see can exist?
I don’t know.
Is it possible all this came about randomly.
I don’t know.
I honestly, do not know. I wish I knew. I wish I could “believe†like Bigfoot, or you.
But I cannot.
Because I just do not know.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:59 am
So do you believe that unicorns, leprechauns and santa claus MIGHT exist? Or is God the only mythical beings that you require no proof to believe that it might exist in your belief system?
December 14th, 2007 at 1:04 am.
McDermott is my Rep. from Seattle.
We've worked his last nerve on several issues.
Most of the time he's come around. This is one of those examples.
I still have to hear his justification on voting for H.R. 1955, essentially declaring the Declaration of Independence a terrorist manifesto.
.
December 14th, 2007 at 1:04 amYet somehow, this angers you atheists, more than it ever angered any religious person I’ve ever encountered.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:52 am
Aren't you in the least bit embarrassed to post a cheap lie like this? That your cowardly, lazy position angers anybody? Because it's really a supreme load of bullshit, on top of all your other extreme opinions. Your pathology is closer to bigfoot's than a thinking progressive, to judge from that cheap generalization, a slur on a group because one guy got your goat. You have the stink of desperation about you now. Anger? With a twit like you? Disgust, maybe; pity, sometimes. After that ugly little lie, scorn, certainly. But you aren't worth anger.
December 14th, 2007 at 1:10 amSo lets see if I’ve got bartlebee's "thought process" down.
If you say Santa Claus does not exist, but cannot prove Santa Claus does not exist, not being able to prove he does not exist constitutes fact.
Anybody have any problem with that, except Bart?
I'm done with this subject and this lunatic. I'm assigning bigfoot to talk some sense into Bartlebee.
December 14th, 2007 at 1:17 amAnd let’s stay on topic, eh? There are plenty of other threads here to discuss the other stuff…at least one a day or so.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — December 14, 2007 @ 1:17 am
bigfoot, the United States was born as a revolt against state Christianity. It was not a Christian nation, and is not a Christian nation. The founders were not Christians, and rejected Christian doctrine as part of the underlying framework. Those are the facts, proving you a liar. The majority is wrong, as the majority is ignorant of law and history. This happens quite often. Governments are overthrown for these kinds of mistakes. You are as wrong as wrong can be, and that's the sad fact you have to live with.
December 14th, 2007 at 1:22 amI really like that movie Groundhogs Day
December 14th, 2007 at 1:36 amIt clearly demonstrates the level of hubristic disrespect exhibited by atheists when speaking about theists, and their belief systems by comparing them to fairy tales.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 1:26 am
and yet it doesn't begin to approach your hubris in declaring everybody without your belief system "fanatics".
You are one sore loser. But, loser you are. And I'm so glad that you've shown your respect for religion by admitting there might be some historical basis for Santa Claus, thereby admitting none for god. And it's very nice that there are thousands of stories and "supportive evidence" coinciding with religious beliefs; too bad there is no real evidence to go along with those "billions" of individual testimonies. Your hubristic beliefs that non-believers and believers alike are fanatics shows your disrespect for all of those with the courage to take a position.
Nicely done, I'll put a bow on it and place it under my Atheist Tree.
December 14th, 2007 at 1:39 am"Men who have attested to communications with a deity of some sort include the best and the brightest, most respected people in the world, and throughout history.
They include kings, princes, poets and presidents.
Scholars, scientists, doctors, teachers, judges and magistrates and all manner of law enforcement personnel, psychiatrists, enginners, lawyers and all manner of well respected, highly intelligent people."
And yet, you don't believe them. Kinda takes the floor out from under you. You just hate atheists, you should admit it and get it over with. It's a bias, a bigotry, not uncommon. Go to church and pray, it's what you really want.
December 14th, 2007 at 1:46 amIt is questionable whether atheists can be considered American.
Comment by Frank M — December 14, 2007 @ 1:41 am
But there is no question that a theocracy is unAmerican.
December 14th, 2007 at 1:47 amIt is questionable whether atheists can be considered American.
Comment by Frank M — December 14, 2007 @ 1:41 am
It is questionable whether belief systems should be believed.
December 14th, 2007 at 1:48 am“THERESTIVUSâ€.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 1:49 am
And howzabout a Festivus... fer the restivus...
December 14th, 2007 at 1:53 am“THERESTIVUSâ€.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 1:49 am
This is just plain idiotic, but hey, it's Frank M... what did you expect?
December 14th, 2007 at 1:55 amFrank M,
You are an atheist. Do you believe in Zeus, Odin, or Apollo? Then you are an atheist in regards to those Gods. Right? Why not? No evidence?
"modern" atheists, simply feel that their is no more evidence for Abraham's God than there is for Zeus.
So out of all the numerous Gods of which antiquity can make an account, you decided to not believe in nearly every one of them. So the difference between you an and "atheist", as you put it, is nearly nothing.
December 14th, 2007 at 1:55 amSorry... tried to grab Frank M's "atheists can't be Americans" quote and missed it. I got what was still on my clipboard by mistake.
December 14th, 2007 at 1:56 am"So that whole “thousands of years of historical and archealogical peripheral supportive evidence that coincides with many religious beliefs, and literally billions of individual testimonies to attest to the existence of some kind of deity†stuff just kinda went right over your head, huh?"
so you want it both ways, is that it? you keep claiming all this evidence and all this testimony (I think you are exaggerating), but you don't know? It hasn't convinced you? You're keeping your options open, right?
But for some reason, I'm wrong? Isn't that always the way with you. I should accept what you won't? Like I said, you've lost your floor. My rigid belief system is simply the fact that there is no god. It's easy enough to prove me wrong, but nobody's done it since the dawn of man. And your long list of opinions hasn't moved me one way or the other. George Bush speaks to god. Enough said.
December 14th, 2007 at 1:58 am#255: Well, there’s just one thing: none of those “gods†are real. Christian God is.
Comment by Frank M — December 14, 2007 @ 1:59 am
I call bullshit!
December 14th, 2007 at 2:01 am#255: Well, there’s just one thing: none of those “gods†are real. Christian God is.
Comment by Frank M — December 14, 2007 @ 1:59 am
Prove it, Frank. just for me.
December 14th, 2007 at 2:01 amFrank M,
Our country was founded as a secular nation not as a nation establishing any religion, or favoring any one over any other.
Thomas Jefferson made this abundantly clear to us over and over throughout his career.
"I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799.
"The advocate of religious freedom is to expect neither peace nor forgiveness from [the clergy]." --Thomas Jefferson to Levi Lincoln, 1802.
"The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, 1800.
"Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." --Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802.
Sounds pretty clear to me. Did you get that last part? "thus building a wall of separation between Church and State"
Hope that clears up your misunderstanding of the historical truths at question here.
December 14th, 2007 at 2:03 amA good, healthy respect for Christian values on which this country was founded is all I want.
Comment by Frank M — December 14, 2007 @ 1:55 am
So last night Frank was overly interested in what was going on in Sandy Berger's pants, and tonight, he's talking about having things shoved down his throat. Yer givin' up too much info, Frankie.
Country wasn't founded on Christian principles, per se, Frankie, but 'sokay if that subtle but real distinction passes you by.
John Locke
No other individual influenced the author of the Declaration of Independence more than Unitarian John Locke (1632-1704). He was a British philosopher who rejected the idea that Kings had a divine right to rule. Instead, Locke argued that people are the source of power, not kings.
Locke argued that people are born with certain "natural" or "inalienable" rights. These include the right to "life, liberty and property." Government did not give people these rights; rather they are born with them and as such, no government can take them away.
According to Locke, people formed governments to protect their rights, which he called a "social contract." People agreed to obey the government and in return, government had the responsibility to protect peoples' natural rights.
Locke also argued that if the government failed to protect our natural rights, then the people had the right to replace the government. Locke's ideas became very influential in developing democratic ideas. Thomas Jefferson, in writing the Declaration of Independence, drew heavily from the writings of John Locke.
BTW, wouldn't "telling the truth" be one of thse **cough** "Christian values" you claim to hold so dear? Considering the whoppers you tell here constantly, yer gonna burn in Hell fer all eternity.
December 14th, 2007 at 2:03 amSee, Frank, I have no problem wth belief systems, as long as they are kept private and personal. Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, Shinto, Baptist; they all have good things they try to do. They all have bad things they do. They're all about the same. And none of them should be part of the governing of a free country. The founders were very clear on that. the founders did not deny God, or Christianity, or Islam, or Judeaism, but they were very explicit in keeping religious tenets out of lawmaking and governing. that's just a fact, Frank, uncomfortable as it might be for you.
December 14th, 2007 at 2:06 amFrank M,
"Well, there’s just one thing: none of those “gods†are real. Christian God is"
Of course. Proof be damned naturally. Jesus was born of a virgin, and and Moses actually parted the Red Sea. The Earth is only 6000 years old, and if you pray the right way a cracker turns into the flesh of Christ, and then you can eat him. Never minding the cannibalistic problems inherent with that last note.
What evidence do you have a this God. One caveat; it must be as good or better than the evidence the Greeks had for Zeus.
December 14th, 2007 at 2:08 amComment by Frank M — December 14, 2007 @ 2:04 am
I don't buy that circular bullshit. How do you know? Lay it it out. I might be convinced. Just don't give me some "I am that I am" sort of shit. Atleast tell me you see your god is sunsets or in the sounds of waves upon the shore or in the joys of copulation, or something for god's sake
December 14th, 2007 at 2:09 amProve it? I can’t help it if you’ve neglected your relationship with the God and can’t see the obvious. As for myself, I know that God exists and that’s good enough evidence for me.
Comment by Frank M — December 14, 2007 @ 2:04 am
You see, frank, I'm fine with that. That's what freedom and tolerance means, that you are free to believe in your god any way you like, as long as it doesn't infringe on my life. And I am free to not believe, as long as I don't prevent you from going to church, praying, or making donations. That's what America has always been, frank, and very successfully, until fundamentalists decided that they had the only right way to live. That sounds like Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, Frank. that's not America.
December 14th, 2007 at 2:10 amMore From Thomas Jefferson. He was so right on.
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." --Thomas Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford, 1814.
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813.
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." --Thomas Jefferson: Bill for Religious Freedom, 1779.
December 14th, 2007 at 2:12 am“The Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they [the clergy] have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of it’s benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind.†–Thomas Jefferson to Moses Robinson, 1801. ME 10:237
And here’s some more stuff about Jefferson you might not know:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ news/ article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28006
Comment by O. Bigfoot — December 14, 2007 @ 2:09 am
Read it yourself, bigfoot, you evidently haven't understood the meaning of the words. Separation of church and state is exactly what he meant: that the Christian religion is friendliest to freedom, as long as it is not the state religion. Case closed. Are you taking stupid pills again?
December 14th, 2007 at 2:13 am#269: I can’t explain colors to a blindman anymore than I can explain the experience of God to you.
Comment by Frank M — December 14, 2007 @ 2:10 am
Ever put you hand inside the mouth of a whale?
December 14th, 2007 at 2:14 amLike the Theists, you just can’t seem to help either converting, or condemning.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 2:11 am
I have only condemned your cowardice and hypocrisy, and I have made zero attempts to convert you or anyone else. more bullshit. You never run out.
December 14th, 2007 at 2:16 amBartlebee,
I see where your coming from with all the evidence talk. But manuscripts, written by humans, with hearsay accounts of events of a supernatural nature, is not very good evidence that the rest of the world should make it's day to day decisions on. Would you agree?
How many native cultures still think there is an angry God shooting across the sky every 76 years when Haley's Comet comes screaming by? The knew little of the natural world and how it worked, and had no idea what that peyote might do to them.
December 14th, 2007 at 2:16 amI have a question that will probably get all of you a-tither:
You argue about whether there is a God or not.
How about a new and different answer: It Doesn't Matter.
You can spend the rest of the night arguing over whether I am an atheist or not. Have fun.
December 14th, 2007 at 2:17 amWhen you’re born again, Satan can’t touch you anymore.
Comment by Frank M — December 14, 2007 @ 2:07 am
et me be blunt... yer a disingenuous idiot.
I can't stand the Christian Church, and I guarantee you, I live more of a "Christian" life than you do, or ever will. See, my very respect for the truth compels me to point out, yer a disingenuous idiot. That's not a hateful comment... it's simply... the truth.
December 14th, 2007 at 2:23 amEver put you hand inside the mouth of a whale?
Comment by dbadass — December 14, 2007 @ 2:14 am
Hold a hummingbird in your hand?
December 14th, 2007 at 2:24 amI personally believe that no one who ever lived has really known for sure if there's a god or not.
I'm comfortable w/ not knowing, but I'm hedging my bet.
Because if there is anything to reincarnation or an afterlife, I'm NOT coming back here again.
Once is enough.
December 14th, 2007 at 2:27 amFrank M,
Here's the point I think of this whole conversation, which, unfortunately for many on the right, they don't get. I'll start with Jefferson again. Why get in the way of a true master?
"The proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779.
Earlier this week, Mitt Romney begged the Republican party not to judge him over his religion. But he didn't ask for that favor (which he should never have had to ask for) because he his religion shouldn't matter. He asked for it, because his religion is so similar to yours.
He saying, "yeah the atheists and these secular types, I could see you wanting to keep them out, but I worship the same God and savior as you. I'm ok."
This is bluntly un-American, and I would argue, that if you agree with those sentiments, then when you say things like "It is questionable whether atheists can be considered American.", you must see it is you who acts in an un-American way.
December 14th, 2007 at 2:27 amEver put you hand inside the mouth of a whale?
Comment by dbadass — December 14, 2007 @ 2:14 am
Hold a hummingbird in your hand?
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — December 14, 2007 @ 2:24 am
Watch any mammal give birth?
December 14th, 2007 at 2:28 amA cicada emerge from a pupa?
Then why have you spent the evening to 2 in the morning after saying good night 2 hours ago, trying to impress upon me your position?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 2:18 am
Because you have hubristically mischaracterised me, and couched your opinions in cheap lies. You made a broad accusation, and you were wrong. You're still wrong, and it was a good night to show you the error of your ways. Your selective reading of my various posts is indicative of your disingenuousness, and your anger management problems are an indication of your immaturity, but I'm having fun. What's interesting is that virtually nobody has appeared, to my knowledge, to back you in your campaign to paint everybody that doesn't believe like you with the broad brush of fanaticism. And you have repeatedly accused me of insulting religious believers, as if my truth should be subservient to theirs. You have clearly shown a level of intolerance for most of the human race that has always been evident in your faux superiority, and I have enjoyed destroying that facade. It's good exercise.
December 14th, 2007 at 2:31 amA cicada emerge from a pupa?
Comment by dbadass — December 14, 2007 @ 2:28 am
One time I saw a flock of pelicans sitting on the water take off one at time, one after the other. As they went up and up, they formed a big spiral, kind of like that famous golden mean sea shell curve. I was flabbergasted at the time. How they did it, I'll never know, but they did.
December 14th, 2007 at 2:32 amComment by The Republic of Stupidity — December 14, 2007 @ 2:32 am
Why is it that those that speak most loudly about their god are the least about to see God?
December 14th, 2007 at 2:36 amBartlebee,
I think I didn't make my point very well. Let me try again.
You said - "If the religions of the world gathered a few million witnesses, and there were resources to depose them all, I’d say one could make a fairly compelling court case."
Let me re-type this, and I think I can better illustrate my point.
If the peoples of the world gathered a few million witnesses, and there were resources to depose them all, I’d say one could make a fairly compelling court case about "Santa Claus."
Do you have any idea how many people, believe, REALLY BELIEVE in Santa? Or that they were abducted by aliens. Millions believed that the earth was flat. Doesn't mean they are crazy, just means that they are wrong.
December 14th, 2007 at 2:36 am"... are the least about to see God?"
Comment by dbadass — December 14, 2007 @ 2:36 am
Too busy talking...
December 14th, 2007 at 2:38 amOne time I saw a flock of pelicans sitting on the water take off one at time, one after the other. As they went up and up, they formed a big spiral, kind of like that famous golden mean sea shell curve. I was flabbergasted at the time. How they did it, I’ll never know, but they did.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — December 14, 2007 @ 2:32 am
AS a youngster I stood amongst the spectacle of MidAtlantic horseshoe crab season and new immediately that nature was the driver
December 14th, 2007 at 2:39 amBartlebee,
I think I've hit upon something here.
You said - "Atheists claim god does not exist, but you cannot prove it."
I don't think atheists claim this at all.
I think they claim that there is not sufficient evidence to support that hypothesis that this "God" exists. It's not the same as claiming God doesn't exist. Those who propose that God exists, have the burden of proof. Why is that? Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. When you make a hypothesis like that about the state of the universe, then you need to back it up. I think that is what atheists are saying.
Plus, there are many that claim Zeus doesn't exist, but they can't prove it. Are they atheists as well?
December 14th, 2007 at 2:42 am"knew immediately that nature was the driver..."
Comment by dbadass — December 14, 2007 @ 2:39 am
I've never seen it in person, much to my disappointment, but I've always been blown away by the monarch butterflies when they migrate. I've seen film of them covering a tree and then all taking off at once. Just astonishing.
December 14th, 2007 at 2:43 amas you were wrong from the very start.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — December 14, 2007 @ 2:39 am
Wow, cool Jingle ballsâ„¢, footie! When you get mad like that 'n start shakin', that "ching-ching-ching-a-ling" gives such a holiday air to that place. Ho... ho... ho...
(tha's my Don Imus impression... pretty good, huh?)
December 14th, 2007 at 2:45 amBARTLEBEE,
I assure you no insult was intended. I believe I've been very respectful. Did my 'flat-earth' example not work?
For thousands of years people were certain that they were the center of the universe. And with good reason actually. Before the advent of the telescope and modern astronomy, it wasn't a bad conclusion to come to. It does appear as though the stars revolve around us. But with further research, we learned that it just wasn't true.
Now with more than 500 years of scientific method to sift through, we still have no good evidence for the hypothesis of this "god".
December 14th, 2007 at 2:46 amI don't wish to interrupt, or engage in, argument. For what it's worth, I agree with BART that the stuff on "the other thread" should stay there.
I ask for a moments indulgence to consider that "our Representatives" voted to give the "Christian Faith" preferential treatment. I had no idea they had voted on so many similar, apparently harmless, little "resolutions".
I don't want the government making "Resolutions" about Faith or Religion. Period!
If you have any love for conspiracies one might see the seeds of, institutionalized, religious segregation and strife in our country. I can just imagine what various prominent neocons will say about people who don't celebrate Christmas ENOUGH! Now that Congress has given the nod.
I urge everybody to contact their Representative, Senators, and anyone else you can think of. I won't even suggest what to say.
I'm going to say something like:
"I think it's inappropriate for the U.S. government to consider motions endorsing any Religion or Holy Day". "I object to such a vote being taken, regardless of outcome". "I think that various Faiths are adequately protected, and revered, in existing U.S. Policy and require no further endorsement from our elected bodies ".
That's all I got. I will leave you all to arguing. G'night.
December 14th, 2007 at 2:47 ambartlebee.
Who's the one being rude
"You could do all that, but then you’d have to actually read something."
I have been respectful during our exchange, and now your not even taking on the merits of my argument.
You said - “Atheists claim god does not exist, but you cannot prove it.â€
To which I said - "I think they claim that there is not sufficient evidence to support that hypothesis that this “God†exists. It’s not the same as claiming God doesn’t exist."
I tried to argue that not all atheists see it this way. Do all Christians believe all the same things? Instead of confronting that argument, instead of confronting the argument that I made you deduced that I don't read.
I don't think your narrow minded enough to subscribe to the notion that all 'atheists' fall under one definition. But I'm not going to be rude and tell you to go read a book.
If you think I'm not worthy of your time due to my literary inadequacies, then I'll be done with you.
December 14th, 2007 at 2:54 amBut tell me, how would that square with your conversion to Islam?
Comment by O. Bigfoot — December 14, 2007 @ 2:51 am
Neither...
December 14th, 2007 at 3:04 amDon't need phony religious mumbo jumbo to make me feel safe or righteous.
December 14th, 2007 at 3:05 amAren't the Christian Reich zombies just following Jesus' example in the New Testament?
His statements about "loving your enemies" and "turning the other cheek" must surely have been typographical errors.
Aren't there numerous stories in the New Testament about Jesus and his twelve disciples taking up arms, beating the sh!t out of gays, torturing anyone who might be suspected of believing differently than them, and killing anyone who didn't heed the words "You're either wit' us or yer agin' us"? I can't seem to find these story in the Bible, but perhaps one of the Christian Reich experts on this site can tell us where we can find these (i.e., book, chapter & verse)?
And if Jesus was even remotely similar to the Repukes, once he rose from the dead, wouldn't he have surely done to those who executed him what the United States has done to Afghanistan and Iraq?
Seriously, if Jesus returned to the earth today, advancing ideas such as turning the other cheek, loving your enemies, encouraging rich people to give away their belongings and spread the Word, helping those least able to help themselves ("doing unto the least of your brethern"), etc., what is the likelihood that he'd ever win the nomination from the Republican party to run for President in 2008?
December 14th, 2007 at 4:02 amWho is more retarded: the retard that you're arguing with, or you for arguing with a retard?
December 14th, 2007 at 4:28 amSPC Jeremy Hall, look it up if you have the balls to actually challenge yourself that far.
I would tell you where you could shove your Christianity, but that cavity is evidently filled with your big, fat, bloated head.
Oh, and Atheos? Greek.
Diagoras of Melos, was the proclaimed the first atheist and executed in the 5th century BC. He was Greek.
December 14th, 2007 at 4:48 amComment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 3:05 am
I am one of those atheists you son of a female dog. You religious pieces of feces have been killing us off for millenia, you have been putting us down because we actually bother to look at the evidence.
You accuse us of fanaticism, well who was burning women at the stake in the middle ages? Who is threatening soldiers on their side with death, for not following whose ideology? What religion does the current piss-poor president of the United States hold and who voted for GHW Bush, a man who denied the patriotism and the citizenship of America's atheist population?
You want a fight I will give you a fight you theocratic a$$wipe.
December 14th, 2007 at 4:54 amI hate to change the subject here, but about this SCHIP crap... If a couple can not afford health insurance for their child, they have no business having a child. I am not saying mass abortions or adoptions, but let's face it - stupid hurts. Rightfully so. Make no mistake, having kids when you can't afford them is stupid. And don't confuse stupidity for ignorance. Ignorance is when you just don't know. Stupid is when you know better and do it anyway. As simplistic as this may sound, responsibility matters. I would bet that if folks knew that the nanny state (Fed Gov) was not going to be there to take care of them, powder their hind-parts, and fix their boo-boos, they would soon see the error of their ways. Americans are smarter than the nutty libs give them credit for. They will adjust.
December 14th, 2007 at 5:58 amBruce, dude, take a blood pressure pill for Christ's sake. Sheesh!
December 14th, 2007 at 6:00 amStubain
1: So you are for punishing the kid for their parent's mistakes?
2: What about people who have kids and then have their economic conditions change? (IE: Husband loses job, wife gets sick etc...)
3: Would you really rather pay for those kids getting really sick and ending up in an emergency ward, when you could pay only a fraction of the cost for them to get treated before it becomes that serious?
December 14th, 2007 at 6:02 amStubain
When someone insults me I get insulted. Particularly when it is someone like BARTLEBEE, who is normally not a flaming bigot.
December 14th, 2007 at 6:03 amStubain: Dumb-ass comment. And let me guess, you are probably one of those men who stake out a spot at Planned Parenthood to scream at women on their way to see the doctor, am I right?
December 14th, 2007 at 6:54 am#328 - "As simplistic as this may sound, responsibility matters." Comment by Stubain — December 14, 2007 @ 5:58 am
Maybe you should tell this to the anti-"take responsibility for your own actions" Republicans that currently hold the White House, and have been relegated to minority status in the House and Senate.
When was the last time any one of them took responsibility for their own actions?
They haven't done so once in in MY lifetime.
December 14th, 2007 at 7:21 amThis is the quality of thought of those who cannot think beyond their nose. (Bush, GOP, neocons)
December 14th, 2007 at 7:25 amIt is questionable that atheists can be considered Americac -Frank M
Frank, your just trying to make really inane statements arent you? What birth certificate has a box to check that says Atheist or Religious?
December 14th, 2007 at 7:35 am“As simplistic as this may sound, responsibility matters.†Comment by Stubain — December 14, 2007 @ 5:58 am
Thats funny coming from a finger pointer.
December 14th, 2007 at 7:38 am"1: So you are for punishing the kid for their parent’s mistakes?" Bruce
Not at all. Reread my comment. "They will adjust." Over time, the reality that individuals are responsible for their actions AND their children will take hold. It will not happen overnight. Like I said, Americans are more than capable of taking care of themselves and their children.
"2: What about people who have kids and then have their economic conditions change? (IE: Husband loses job, wife gets sick etc…)" Bruce
It is a safe assumption that dookie happens. Thus, it can be planned for. Save, invest, don't have children until you have some level of success and can afford to adjust yourself financially when the inevitable happens. I know this is not all that difficult of a concept to comprehend.
"3: Would you really rather pay for those kids getting really sick and ending up in an emergency ward, when you could pay only a fraction of the cost for them to get treated before it becomes that serious?" Bruce
I don't want to pay for other people’s stupidity. Nor should you. Look, if more people kept their head out of their posteriors, and acted like their future children's lives depended on them, they would no doubt make better decisions - like not having children until they can afford them.
December 14th, 2007 at 8:04 amI'm not about to enter into as insane an argument as this... but I've always considered myself an atheist. I believe in what I can see/verify. I can't "prove" that my lack of belief has merit, nor do I care to try. My lack of belief is not the tenet of my existence, it's just one of the nuances of my character. I don't sit at home "disbelieving" nor do I care much about whether others agree or disagree with my feelings. To argue about how some people portray or exhibit their atheism is a joke. To apply the example set by some to all atheists is ludicrous.
December 14th, 2007 at 8:05 am"Stubain: Dumb-ass comment. And let me guess, you are probably one of those men who stake out a spot at Planned Parenthood to scream at women on their way to see the doctor, am I right?"
Comment by loretta
Well, almost. Personally, I think abortion (for any reason) is disgusting, irresponsible, and degrades human life. The law being what it is, right or wrong, I don't protest those who exercise their rights under the law, even though I wholeheartedly disagree with the law.
Politically, its none of my damned business.
December 14th, 2007 at 8:14 amFreedom got run over by a reindeer.
December 14th, 2007 at 8:15 am"Maybe you should tell this to the anti-â€take responsibility for your own actions†Republicans that currently hold the White House, and have been relegated to minority status in the House and Senate.
When was the last time any one of them took responsibility for their own actions?" Democrat Soldier
Fair question. I can't say this administration has always been on the "up and up." The best way I can respond is to say that a bad day as a conservative is always better than a good day as a liberal.
December 14th, 2007 at 8:27 amThe best way I can respond is to say that a bad day as a conservative is always better than a good day as a liberal.
Comment by Stubain — December 14, 2007 @ 8:27 am
You mean the best way you can respond to it without actually responding to it. This administration takes absolutely no responsibility for their actions & you kid yourself that they've done a better job then previous Dem administrations. At no time in modern has your country been so reviled, so broke, so inhumane and your people lacking in so many rights. It's more apt to say that a bad day as a conservative is as bad as it gets.
December 14th, 2007 at 8:37 amExactly, Dave. Look at his statement. Is he saying that he was once a liberal--he has to be, or he would have no idea what being one is like. In which case he's just in denial. You don't wash liberal off--it gets into your pores. It just needs to be coaxed back out.
December 14th, 2007 at 8:52 am"It’s more apt to say that a bad day as a conservative is as bad as it gets."
Comment by Dave C
Let's assume you are correct. Even so, America will survive, and thrive. We have survived the Civil War, WWI, the depression, WWII, slavery, women's suffrage, Korea, Vietnam, Cold War, Cuban Missile Crisis, racism, OJ, JFK assassination, 9/11, Watergate, Whitewater, Monica, Gitmo, Haditha, Air America, 2000 election, and so on. Need not your heart be troubled, neocon or nutty lib, America will push forward and move on.
December 14th, 2007 at 8:54 am"Exactly, Dave. Look at his statement. Is he saying that he was once a liberal–he has to be, or he would have no idea what being one is like. In which case he’s just in denial. You don’t wash liberal off–it gets into your pores. It just needs to be coaxed back out."
Comment by Menehune
"“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.â€
December 14th, 2007 at 9:02 amWinston Churchill
Goods days as a liberal include:
Abolishing slavery
Giving every adult the vote
Establishing a minimum wage
Establishing the 40 hour workweek
Improving air quality
Improving water quality
Social Security
Abolishing child labor
Public education for all
Yeah, liberalism on a good day is, you know, just awful, while conservatism during the Bush administration has been a walk in the park.
December 14th, 2007 at 9:02 amStubain--look for the balance. There is a spot between the brain and the heart. It is called the larynx. You can strive to be a moderate by 60 if you have a larynx.
December 14th, 2007 at 9:09 amComment by Frosty Cupcake — December 14, 2007 @ 9:02 am
Slavery? Libs? I don't think so. Try again.
Social Security? What a joke. After I crunch the numbers, by the time I retire, I will have paid close to 1.2 million into Social Security (inflation included). Most likey, I will not see a dime of that money. Nor will my family. Thanks alot, libs.
Public education? The most frequent form of child abuse. No thanks.
As for the rest? Okay, I will give you those.
December 14th, 2007 at 9:11 am"Stubain–look for the balance. There is a spot between the brain and the heart. It is called the larynx. You can strive to be a moderate by 60 if you have a larynx."
Comment by Menehune
Okay, I'll bite. Go on...
December 14th, 2007 at 9:15 amTake care, All. I shall return later to respond.
December 14th, 2007 at 9:20 amStubain
The conservative South supported slavery and the Northeast, with its godless cities and cosmopolitan trade banned it. This is one of many factors which led to the civil war - back when the Republican party was the liberal party.
As to social security: Chances are you will one day need it. Your statements on "Personal responsibility" which amounts to backing having a government with no duties, which only has the power to restrict your freedoms, indicates quite strongly that you have never actually suffered or had something go wrong. Or it indicates that you just never noticed all the times when that big evil government actually helped you.
Also, calling public education child abuse, simply indicates that you didn't do too well in school.
December 14th, 2007 at 9:23 amStubain...
I went to public school. It was fine--of course that was awhile ago. I am certainly in the same position with S. S.--sure, on some level I wish I got to keep every cent I make. But then I hate to think
December 14th, 2007 at 9:23 amoops..lost half my post
Anhow, it went on about the costs of living in a free society that cares about its citizens. The usual lib-speak. But try the moderation--it's good for the blood pressure.
December 14th, 2007 at 9:36 am#348 - "Slavery? Libs? I don’t think so. Try again."
I do think so. Remember, this was over 100 years ago, when there were liberal Republicans. THEY are the one's who forced the issue and freed the slaves. It was the Conservative Republicans who wanted to sweep the whole issue under the rug.
Ever since the 80's, liberal Republicans have been hounded out of the party as thy stove to force their party and the country as far to the right as they possibly could.
Try again.
"Social Security? What a joke. After I crunch the numbers, by the time I retire, I will have paid close to 1.2 million into Social Security (inflation included). Most likey, I will not see a dime of that money. Nor will my family. Thanks alot, libs." Comment by Stubain — December 14, 2007 @ 9:11 am
Actually, blame the Republicans for that one. They are the ones who started stealing the surplus payments to Social Security, giving it IOU's to be paid at some time in the future. This was done as an accountants numbers "trick" to artificially reduce the deficit that Republicans have historically increased at a faster rate than Democrats.
Interestingly enough, all the social security "chicken little's" who've been crying about a shortfall refuse to consider the IOU's that the federal government owes social security.
As of today, the federal government owes about 1 trillion to social security.
December 14th, 2007 at 9:46 amMad? Why should I be mad? I have nothing to be mad about. I knew I was right all along. Never doubted it for a second.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — December 14, 2007 @ 2:51 am
You know that being so sure of ones self when all evidence directly contraqdicts that opion is a sure sign of insanity. You may want to have that looked at. We already knew you were dumb, a bigoted racist, a coward, and someone who hates America. But now we can throw insanity into that big bag of issues.
December 14th, 2007 at 9:53 amOkay, here is the basic clash between conservative and liberal.
Liberals believe the government is there to serve the people.
Conservatives believe that the people are there to serve the government.
Hence the basic distinction.
Big vs small government is not the distinction, and nor is spending. Conservatives, particularly Reagan style conservatives have run the most expensive governments in America's history. Your worst deficits, other then those racked up during WWII, were not under liberal presidents.
Indeed, they were actually under Reagan, Bush Snr, and Bush Jnr. Further, the only reason why Bush's inflation adjusted deficit in 2004 isn't the worst in American history, is because Iraq was not included in America's deficit figures.
The two years that beat 2004, 1943 and 1945, included WWII.
On a tax dollar scale, seven out of ten of the states most aptly termed "Bums and stiffs" when it comes to the federal tax dollar, are red states. Of the states which actually contribute more in federal taxes than they cost, only four are red states. The rest are all blue.
Conservatives having any idea of how to manage money is not the dividing line, or at least, not in the way that conservatives would like it to be. The blue states, which tend to act as magnets to the unemployed due to them being more urbanised then the rural red states, are also the states with the highest median income and the best educated Americans. Indeed, those blue states have much lower poverty stats despite the fact that urbanisation works against them.
A distrust and hatred of the rich is not the dividing line. Again, the blue states have a much higher median income, plus the prominent rich liberals out there like Al Gore, and, though I despise him for reasons apart from his politics, George Soros.
Nor is war the dividing line. WWII and Vietnam were both fought under liberal presidents. Indeed, LBJ is frequently forgotten for his major positive contribution in fighting racism.
December 14th, 2007 at 10:13 amNever mind that Jefferson regularly attended a Christian Church, was married in a Christian Church, edited a version of the Holy Bible intended to be distributed to Native Americans by missionaries, donated money to the missionary effort to convert Native Americans to Christianity, etc. etc.
Everything in Jefferson’s writings indicate freedom of religion, there is nothing in Jefferson’s writings that indicate freedom from religion.
This case was closed before it began, as you were wrong from the very start.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — December 14, 2007 @ 2:39 am
Did he celebrate christmas?
December 14th, 2007 at 10:24 amDid he support govt-sponsored public displays recognizing religious holidays?
Did he introduce frivolous legislation recognizing his or any other faith?
Did he politicize religion?
Never mind that Jefferson regularly attended a Christian Church, was married in a Christian Church, edited a version of the Holy Bible intended to be distributed to Native Americans by missionaries, donated money to the missionary effort to convert Native Americans to Christianity, etc. etc.
Everything in Jefferson’s writings indicate freedom of religion, there is nothing in Jefferson’s writings that indicate freedom from religion.
This case was closed before it began, as you were wrong from the very start.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — December 14, 2007 @ 2:39 am
"I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799
"Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions more than our opinions in physics or geometry." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." --Thomas Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford, 1814
please go away now.
December 14th, 2007 at 11:01 am"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." -- Denis Diderot (1713-1784)
December 14th, 2007 at 11:21 amBecause your stupid, inbred ignorant mind cannot be bothered to read what I actually wrote, or at least cannot comprehend it.
:|
Or maybe you do compreheend it and you’re just another lying c0cksucker like the rest of you holier than thou atheists.
Whatever the hell you are, after that comment, you can pucker and ki$$ my a$$.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 11:10 am
spoken like a true christian!
December 14th, 2007 at 11:34 amHey look, it's the fanatical non-atheist, non-theist at it again. Perhaps a new word is needed.
December 14th, 2007 at 11:36 amgeesh!
December 14th, 2007 at 11:41 amBARTLEBEE needs a hug.
any volunteers?
Another ignorant atheist who can’t read.
I could swear you wrote that I couldn't read but I had no problem with that sentence.
kiss my ambiguous a$$.
Bingo!!!!! Ambiguous is the right word for you.
Bartlebee, I don't believe there is a god. That's it. I don't consider it a system of beliefs. Some people call it that including yourself. If that makes me ignorant to you then I'm afraid your the pot calling the kettle black.
I gotta do some work but will be back latter to see how much more insulting you can get.
December 14th, 2007 at 11:48 amBARTLEBEE
Inja is the Zulu word for dog. It is written out using the Latin alphabet, but that doesn't make a latin word. Indeed, the I Ching is here written using the latin alphabet, but that doesn't make it a latin word.
In fact this whole post is written out using the Latin alphabet, that doesn't make the language it is written in, Latin. Dumba$$
Oh, and as to your claims of me being a fanatic, did you look up that name? Don't think so. You see, me holding a different opinion to you doesn't make me a fanatic, it just makes me someone who disagrees with you dog-turd.
As to disproving God? You can do it at home, easily.
Read the following the Bible and consider Paul. The story of Paul shows that the Christian Jesus (Who is God, who is also the holy spirit) doesn't have any problems appearing to people.
The new testament in several places, says Jesus will appear to you if you pray. In fact, it will be trivial for him to do it.
So pray. Then report back to us as to what result you achieve.
Because my bet, is you will report no sudden divine appearance of Jesus, but rather have him being a no show. Thus, your God is disproved.
You could argue that God could be a seperate being to the Biblical God, or that the Bible got it wrong, but then it would be god, not God.
For more proofs of God's nonexistance, read this site
http://godisimaginary.com/index.htm
So I can't disprove all gods, but I can disprove God - the specifically Christian God.
December 14th, 2007 at 11:55 amOh, and the reason why I don't think you looked up that name, is for the same reason that I don't think you know who said the following:
I also don't suppose you have been following the US elections, I don't suppose you have ever noted just how America's feels about the possibility of an Atheist president (More people would vote for a gay one) or how 17 percent of your population, 78 percent of your top scientists, 60 percent of your scientists overall, can be proclaimed non-citizens by somebody who is hardly a lunatic fringe figure.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:05 pmWhy would an atheist take theology?
That's like a car mechanic majoring in cooking.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:06 pmBruce,
I've always preferred condensing the argument down, to:
"Pray into your left and, and spit in your right, and see which one fills up first"
December 14th, 2007 at 12:08 pmBARTLEBEE
Okay, how about this. Go out and post anywhere, that all people who believe in a God, are fanatics. Go out and do it.
Because, right now you have Christians declaring a culture war on atheists because storekeepers have wished them a happy holiday.
Right now, you have soldiers in Iraq who are being threatened with being fragged, because they are atheists.
Right now you have a major political party telling America to get down and pray.
Right now, you have a major movement in America that is outright calling atheists devil worshippers (And no I don't get the logic of that one either.)
Right now you have a movement against secularism, because of religious people wanting to change the law to being biased against atheists.
Right now you have families disowning their children and their siblings, due to those children or siblings, coming out and saying they are atheists.
Right now you have cops who will not protect an atheist counter-march to a Christian march.
And right now you have an atheist community which is pretty mild really, standing up for themselves and you have jokers like you, going around calling us fanatics.
We aren't calling for banning religion. We aren't calling for religious people to not have the right to believe whatever they want. We are calling for secularism, also "Government butts out." We are calling for honest debate. We are calling for respect if not acceptance.
And you are calling us fanatics while atheists are having their lives threatened, because of their lack of faith.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:26 pmOnly belief I have is that there is not a big glowy guy in the sky.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:28 pmBARTLEBEE
Oh waaah, waaah, waaah you can't take it when you get your own sh!t thrown back at you.
You declared us fanatics for simply disagreeing with the religious? Sorry, you can't stand back and wail about ad hominem after that baby.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:35 pmOh, and BARTLEBEE, here is a direct quote from you
I happen to BE a strong atheist. I happen to think there isn't a God. And your comments apply to me personally, so don't pretend that you are some sort of innocent abused in this.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:44 pmI’ve told you 1000 times why I call you people fanatics, and you prove my reasoning with every new post.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
Yeah I am a fanatic because I stand up for myself and you would much rather I didn't. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:46 pmBARTLEBEE
First, I have already posted a disproof of God. Theology, makes lots of excuses but it cannot overwrite the Bible as an authority on the Christian God.
But, aside from that, let me just get this straight, I am a fanatic not because you disagree with me, but because you call me and everybody who shares my ideas on the universe, fanatics and I object to it quite strongly. That is in essence what you define as a fanatic?
Thankyou for playing have a good night and my oppologies to your mother.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:59 pmBartlebee, I have to do some more work and may be back latter this afternoon (can't guarantee it though - there are some beer waiting for me in the fridge). I am enjoying this exchange however as I grew up in a religious environment and over the years have thought a lot about religion and god as it seems you have as well. My last thought for now is this, I don't think it is wise to be an atheist and then sit back while religion is used to the detriment of civilization.
Talk with you later.
December 14th, 2007 at 1:09 pmBARTLEBEE
Oh? So tell me, what is the definition of God?
God is the figure within the Bible, who created man, created the universe in fact, generally acted poorly right up until the new testament, and then in the new testament, came to Earth in the shape of Jesus.
None of this so far is against any of the major branches of Christianity.
While on Earth as Jesus, this God made several statements which have been taken to define who he is. Amongst these are promises that he will answer prayers. Thus far, nothing I have stated here isn't a fact, and I can quote the verses if you want.
Part of what defines the Christian God is answering prayers, including a prayer asking him to appear.
So get on your knees and pray. You aren't doing it falsely, get on your knees and pray to God for him to appear.
Now please, report back once you have done it.
December 14th, 2007 at 1:10 pmBartleBee, you shouldn't have said that.
That is Mathew, 7:7.
Book of John 14:14.
Mathew 18:19. So okay, get a friend and pray. See what happens, report back.
December 14th, 2007 at 1:16 pmBARTLEBEE
More like, you are calling me a fanatic for getting pissed off, when you call me a fanatic.
In fact by your definition, if you read your arguments, you are a fanatic because I have treated you to the exact same level of argument as you have treated every strong atheist in the world to and you have not liked it have you?
You are a retard. Plain and simple. Even I don't think all Christians, who believe in God, are fanatics. Nor do I think all Muslims are fanatics, or anybody else who will take offence at being called a fanatic simply for holding an opinion.
December 14th, 2007 at 1:23 pmBARTLEBEE
Ask and it will be given to you
Whatever you ask in my name.
Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.
So here is the prayer "Jesus, we your humble servants (Because hey, it might just take two of you) wish to make this blathering fool in South Africa shut his heretical yap, so could you appear behind Bruce Gorton, in South Africa, clout him over the head for us, and explain to him that he is a dumba$$. He won't mind, because, heck he respects being proved wrong and he gave his permission."
December 14th, 2007 at 1:29 pmBARTLEBEE
Those three passages state clearly that Jesus will do whatever you ask of him.
So pray and ask him to appear.
December 14th, 2007 at 1:32 pmBARTLEBEE
Hardly, it just proves that the Christian God does not exist. Their might be a similar god, who knows, but the Christian God of the Bible makes a clear committment which he doesn't follow through on. As one of his traits is that he always follows through on his commitments, this goes contrary to his traits as a being.
This is not to say no gods exist (Though evidence to that effect is, how shall I say, dubious) but rather that God doesn't exist.
For all I know, there is a god out there, but then, for all I know there might be fairies at the bottom of my garden. I am a strong atheist, in the same tone that most atheists are strong atheists, in that I think it about as likely as The Secret. In fact, it is not all that far divorced from The Secret.
December 14th, 2007 at 1:41 pmBARTLEBEE
Okay, I know people who are very religious, and have relatives who are dying. Ask it will be given right? How about a cure for AIDS. They haven't gotten one yet.
December 14th, 2007 at 1:42 pmOh, and by the way? Repeatedly calling me a fool, isn't a counter argument. Of course, you are a fanatic (By the same argument that you use to call ME a fanatic) and are thus probably not going to get that are you?
December 14th, 2007 at 1:46 pmBARTLEBEE
Hey, those people I know who have relatives dying of AIDS? They seriously want a cure. It isn't about parlour tricks.
Of course, they haven't gotten one yet. We'll see.
December 14th, 2007 at 1:49 pmBARTLEBEE
They have faith. Good people, but they have faith that God will pull through.
But, then, of course, if God doesn't, well like the Boxers who got shot, its all their fault for not having enough faith. Yeah. Right.
December 14th, 2007 at 1:55 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
I know people who have been cured by sangomas.
There is a known effect in medicine called the placebo effect. It accounts for these miracle cures which occur in all religions, going back to people in Ancient Greece.
The reason for this is that we think something is bad, we make it worse by worrying at it. This is particularly effective in Cancer.
I have yet to hear of someone getting cured of AIDS this way though.
December 14th, 2007 at 2:02 pmBARTLEBEE
But you see, Bartlebee, I wasn't objecting to you defending religion. I like religious arguments provided they don't end in legislation.
What I was objecting to, was you labeling me, and everybody who shares my belief system, fanatics.
Hence, why I get to call you all sorts of names to provoke you into maybe, just maybe, realising what the heck it is you were saying. Of course, that requires you to actually think about things, which as you are a fanatic by your own definition, you aren't going to do.
December 14th, 2007 at 2:10 pmBARTLEBEE
When you stop making excuses for a God that doesn't exist, then you will get back to the world of the intellegent.
Control, isn't the same a cure BTB.
December 14th, 2007 at 2:12 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 2:10 pm
Frankly, Bart, I have kicked your arse here. Seriously, you have made excuses for God, you haven't disputed my points, and you haven't proved shit on your original argument.
I have provided evidence as to why I don't think there is a Christian God, which you have disputed in a manner which is less than brilliant (As, I am sure that if my friends don't have suffecient faith there are millions like them who DO and who have prayed for the same result) and then you have gone on to ad-hominem, proving that your fanatic claim, applies more strongly to you than it does me.
You see, I disagree with religion, I don't think there is a god. In fact my opinion, based on the evidence of centuries of the Bible and other holy books being proven wrong (Shape of the Earth and the solar system, the moon not being a light source, the lack of corroborating evidence for certain major events in the Bible, the evidence for evolution, the whole shebang of science in fact.)
But, I hold that anybody here has the right to disagree with me. You can argue with me about it, and I won't particularly stress about that aspect of the argument. I will stress about arguments like "Morality is based on religion" because I am non religious and I consider it an insult to me personally.
But, God? I have opinions, and I enjoy the argument.
But you see the heart of this argument is not our disagreement over the existance or non-existance of God. The heart of this argument is you claiming that I am a fanatic because I stand up for my belief system.
You claim that all Strong Atheists, who believe there to be no God, are fanatics no more bound by reason then say, Pat Robertson.
And that is deeply personal to me. That is you making a claim about me, personally, and then using me taking offense at it, as evidence of me being a fanatic.
It is about you deciding to act like a bigot, and then go crying about how you have been victimised by the "Nasty atheists" who have taken offense at it.
It is about you having your head shoved up your arse.
December 14th, 2007 at 2:27 pmSorry Bartlebee, but I was raised Christian. My parents are devout right wing Christian conservatives. Nothing wrong with that.
But, having read the entire Bible through with my parents and brother, there are way too many problems with the Bible for somebody like me. It even contradicts itself.
That translates to my beliefs.
A bunch of old men got together to try and figure out a way to 1) bring order to the masses and to control them. So, they created a big glowy guy in the sky who will make you burn forever and ever if you question said bi glowy guy. I am glad you enjoy your beliefs, but others have a right to their beliefs, just as much as Christians, Jews, Muslims, FSM followers.
You are no more moral than those who don't believe what you do. That would just be arrogant, which is one of the seven deadly sins I think.
December 14th, 2007 at 2:28 pmYes you did. You said that your comments applied to all Strong Atheists. I am a strong atheist.
You can appologise, and say no that is not what you meant, but it is what you said.
December 14th, 2007 at 2:31 pmSpudge Boy
Well said.
December 14th, 2007 at 2:32 pmBARTLEBEE
You haven't proved anything. What have you proved?
That when insulted, you react the same way I did when you insulted me, and every other strong atheist on Earth - and therefore I am a fanatic?
December 14th, 2007 at 2:40 pmGo ahead and anxiously await all day long.
While your doing that, you can go ahead and find the post where I said you were a Christian. As a matter of fact, I said "I was raised" I am not sure I know you in real life and I am sure my brother isn't that interested in politics, so why are you interjecting yourself into my life?
December 14th, 2007 at 2:48 pmBARTLEBEE
Of course it is a belief system, but that doesn't make it irrational. It is a system whereby one takes the available evidence at ones disposal and makes assumptions about how reality operates and what is real.
That which we don't have evidence of, or evidence to show the likelyhood of, is judged to be unlikely.
That which is repeatedly shown to be wrong, is deemed really unlikely. Not much is impossible, but we don't know enough to know the full scale of what is possible yet.
The evidence from fossil records, genetic research, even geology, geography and observing the solar system, counts towards it. The lack of divine intervention also counts towards it.
It is not a selfish wish to have a cure for a disease afflicting a huge chunk SA's population. It is not a test of God even, it is a real wish to see a cure, and, lets be honest, that cure isn't going to come out of a Church through a divine revelation.
Of all of the belief systems out there, it is the only one that is comfortable with not knowing, and seeking to know. Follow any religious teaching, and it will promise you all the answers, follow strong atheism, and about the only answer it gives is "There probably isn't a god."
December 14th, 2007 at 2:50 pmScroll up.
December 14th, 2007 at 2:54 pmOh and you can drop stupid lines like this from your posts. I come and go as I please. Right now I am here and answering you. Next time I may be gone for an hour. So, stop awaiting what I say.
December 14th, 2007 at 2:55 pmBARTLEBEE
No, I have just proven that my beliefs have some basis. I disagree with you on your interpretation of those passages, but that doesn't make me a fanatic. It just makes me somebody who disagrees with you.
You have proven singularly irrational in this argument. Indeed, you have repeatedly called me names, and accused me of being a fanatic, because I objected to being called a fanatic.
Of course, the truth is that you are actually the fanatic here. Read your posts, look at how you reacted to me insulting you in exactly the same way you were insulting every single strong atheist on Earth.
You call me a fanatic, okay, I can live with that, because to you, evidently, being a fanatic, simply means standing up for your own beliefs, and I see nothing wrong with that provided you aren't legislating your beliefs without good reason.
December 14th, 2007 at 3:04 pmWTF are you talking about? I am just telling you to not hold your breath for my answer. It may come now or later, so drop your stupid "I'll await your answer" bullsh!t.
A hit and run troll would have said "BARTLBEE IS A DUMB FU*K" and not come back. I believe this is my 5th or 6th post.
Now you wanna drop your inane "I await with baited breath you answer oh wise one" bullsh!t? It has nothing to do with the conversation and just makes you look desperate.
December 14th, 2007 at 3:08 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
Cry me a river.
When I argued against the 9/11 conspiracy theory I had the same thing.
When I argued against voting for the Democratic Party (Rightly as it has turned out) I had the same thing.
When I argued in favour of Israel, I had the same thing.
That we may agree on some things doesn't mean we agree on everything, or even that we should agree on everything. I do not object to you standing up for religious people, go ahead, but don't expect strong atheists to sit idly by when you insult us en masse.
I wouldn't expect the religious to sit idly by in those circumstances do not try to hold me to a higher standard in that regard.
December 14th, 2007 at 3:10 pmSo then you are saying every religious person on the face of the planet is a fanatic?
December 14th, 2007 at 3:11 pmDear BARTLEBEE, you can't prove there isn't a Dragon in my garage (http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm). So i can't prove your god nonexistence, but neither you can`t prove my dragon nonexistence.
Happy Sol Invictus ;)
December 14th, 2007 at 3:11 pmBruce Gorton,
When I say I support the death penalty, I get the same thing.
Suck it up BARTLEBEE. We aren't all sweet heart lovers here. We are adults with differing opinions. Live with it.
December 14th, 2007 at 3:12 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
Under that definition there isn't a non-fanatic person belonging to any religion on Earth.
That is not being a fanatic, that is just believing that some things are true and others not.
December 14th, 2007 at 3:13 pmI don't need to answer your non-question, because I spoke of my beliefs, but you are so mad that you think I said something about you.
You need to drink a beer and slow down.
My beliefs, once again, is that there is no big glowy guy in the sky. Does that mean that you think there is a big glowy man in the sky? Nope, just means I don't think there is.
December 14th, 2007 at 3:15 pmBut I will say that you are arguing very strongly for the big glowy man int he sky.
December 14th, 2007 at 3:17 pmGreat!... When did they found a fossilized angel or gods footprints or else?.
Hinduism have far older an bigger historical record, so why aren't we reciting Sutras?
You and me are ateisths either, the difference is you believe in the existence of one more god than i ;) I don't believe in the existence of Odin neither (but he's cool ;))
December 14th, 2007 at 3:19 pmAhhhh, so you don't like it when what you have done to me is being done to you.
I told you what my belief was and you assumed that I was talking about you and then when I spin the table around you say that it is a sign of fanaticism.
Well, I guess that makes you a fanatic as well. Problem solved.
December 14th, 2007 at 3:23 pmNow with the classic grammar police tactic. Oy vey!
December 14th, 2007 at 3:24 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
That one would be Budhism, one religion I respect.
Christianity's records only go back about 1500 years, were edited for political expediency and lack corroborating evidence.
Look, when Jesus was born there was supposedly a highly illogical census taken right? Huge hassle all across the empire. Now why is it, the only record of a census anytime near then, is 40 years later and only a local census?
Also, Jesus was of Nazerath right? Where is there another record of Nazerath during his life time? No other sources mention it.
Isaiah, God stops the sun. There were other societies around then that would have recorded it (China for example) so, why is the only record of this, left to isolated battlefield in Israel?
At about the time Christianity began, the major religion in the world was Roman paganism. Most people believed in the Roman gods (With a healthy "Or else" rule in effect.) Do you think the Roman gods are real?
In fact, at any given point there have been older religions then Christianity, which you will dismiss as nonsense, which had a strong, educated following.
The majority of America's population believes in creationism. Believes the literal story of creationism.
December 14th, 2007 at 3:25 pmOk, no problem, i understand you don't have a valid answer for me. At least today they won`t burn me at the stake for my "fanatical atheist" thoughts.
December 14th, 2007 at 3:28 pmANd does beliefs mean Christianity? No. Your beliefs could be that little imps live in your closet. I neither care now nor will I care later what your beliefs are. I just said I am glad you enjoy them.
Stop trying to put words in my mouth. I know exactly what I write. Unlike the Bible, the things I say are not up for interpretation.
December 14th, 2007 at 3:31 pmBARTLEBEE
I know all about the Catholic Church and the argument based around "What is a day."
What you seemingly don't know about it is a poll which found that 51% of America's population believes in literal creationism.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml
December 14th, 2007 at 3:37 pmDumb a$$. I said I am glad you enjoy your beliefs, but I don't believe in a big glowy man in the sky.
I neither told you what your beliefs are nor do I care. You are arguing just like a troll. You need to take a deep breath and stop trying to make sh!t up out of thin air.
December 14th, 2007 at 3:37 pmOh and nothing on a stupid political blog upsets me. Takes a little more than different colored pixel on a monitor to upset me.
December 14th, 2007 at 3:39 pmSo, then you are an atheist arguing with other atheists? Weird.
December 14th, 2007 at 3:53 pmYes, you are a dumb fu*k because I never said what beliefs you have and I don't give a flying fu*k what they are.
But, your last post actually said what your beliefs are, you don't believe in god or gods. Great, I still don't give a flying fu*k what you do or do not believe.
December 14th, 2007 at 3:55 pmThat would be agnostic. But you said you don't believe in any gods, that would be atheist. Make up your fu*king mind.
December 14th, 2007 at 3:58 pmAh, now you are throwing things out there and hoping we don't catch.
First, you have to demonstrate that all members of those religions don't believe creationism. You haven't done that at all, which is odd considering that Jews, are the guys who came up with the story in the first place.
December 14th, 2007 at 3:58 pmI still really like that movie Groundhog's Day
December 14th, 2007 at 4:00 pmIt makes you still a dumb fu*k. You are either agnostic or athiest. You either believe there is no god or you believe that there may be a god or you believe that there is a god. You decide, then we can discuss.
Your strawmen don't work here.
December 14th, 2007 at 4:01 pmBARTLEBEE
My belief is that you are basically just trying to play a wind up merchant and a troll at this point, as opposed to actually offering a real argument or standing by any sort of a position.
It is very easy to proclaim everybody is wrong, but what do you actually think the truth is?
Don't know? Welcome to atheism.
Maybe? Welcome agnosticism.
December 14th, 2007 at 4:02 pmdbadass
You know, I thought I was the only one out there who really did.
December 14th, 2007 at 4:04 pmBARTLEBEE
In which case you are an atheist, and a pretty strong one at that. Not all atheists agree, there isn't a central creed which you swear upon.
Some Atheists are like me, and think by any reasonable standard, God has been disproved. Other gods, maybe, maybe even a Deist god, but the strict Christian God? No. In some ways you could argue that I am an anti-theist, except I make some allowances for being wrong.
Others, simply state that they don't believe it one way or the other.
Atheism is the default position. It is nothing to be ashamed of.
December 14th, 2007 at 4:09 pmGo fu*k yourself. You self absorbed AGNOSTIC. I know you think you have your own special set of rules but you don't there are only three choices and "none" is not one of them. If "none" is an option, then that is what I am. I don't believe in a god or any other stupid sh!t. You die, you turn to worm food, nothing more.
Get over yourself.
December 14th, 2007 at 4:14 pmNow you are making my argument regarding you.
December 14th, 2007 at 4:15 pmYou know, I thought I was the only one out there who really did.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — December 14, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
But it sure does get old after awhile sort of like this tired deal
December 14th, 2007 at 4:18 pmTo the lurkers.
Now, when I started reading the thread, I thought the attacks on Bart were, unwarranted and frankly a little disgusting. I live in a different time zone to the rest of you, so I started reading this thread fairly late in the argument.
But you see, then I read that. Then I read him apply it to all strong atheists.
To Bart
If you want to pretend to be an innocent abused, please make sure that those of us taking offense at your words, don't have a case.
December 14th, 2007 at 4:25 pmDo you believe you are a fu*king human being that breaths air through your nose or mouth? Yeah? Those ones........
You know what, I take it back, don't enjoy your beliefs. I hope you live a miserable life thinking you have a special set of rules than everybody else.
Nice strawman though. You have been carrying on about it for a rather long time now. Good job. Good troll.
December 14th, 2007 at 4:31 pmDude, you are the most fanatical person I have seen on this blog in quite some time.
You are a fanatical agnostic. Way to go.
December 14th, 2007 at 4:32 pmGreat now we can all be spared more of the same!
December 14th, 2007 at 4:32 pmBartlbee, nobody gies a flying fu*k what Bruce said to you. You deserve all of it for the way you are acting.
You are being a d!ckwad trying to put words in others peoples mouths and you think you are a know it all about a subject you don't believe in. Or is that believe you don't believe in believing you don't believe in not believing in.
You are running around in circles chasing your tail. Slow down chief. You are not the master of the universe.
December 14th, 2007 at 4:35 pmRight after you posted this:
and then applied to me. You are innocent abused, you are someone who went out, posted that, stood by it, and then acted surprised when strong atheists who normally side with you in an argument, turned against you.
It is getting late out here, we've got the ANC conference over the weekend I am going to log off. Goodnight.
December 14th, 2007 at 4:36 pmFirst:
Then:
Your second statement makes you an agnostic. Sorry that you don't like it, but your beliefs are that you don't believe you know if there is a god or not.
Sorry, but that is just the way it is.
December 14th, 2007 at 4:39 pmOhhhh, poor little Bartlebbee, somebody said soemthing about his mommy.
Grow up.
December 14th, 2007 at 4:41 pmYou haven't done anything other than make yourself look like an a$$hat.
December 14th, 2007 at 4:43 pmHere, let me translate it to dumb a$$ for you:
You are an agnostic. Sorry you don't like that.
December 14th, 2007 at 4:45 pmI do not need any other words to describe you. You are a self absorbed, know-it-all agnostic, who likes to label other people and cries when somebody says soemthign about his mommy.
December 14th, 2007 at 4:46 pmBut, that is why you said you started this whoel rant.
December 14th, 2007 at 4:46 pmI like how you want to call others names, but don't like it when it comes back at you. That is what I mean by grow up. I am not talking about age.
December 14th, 2007 at 4:48 pmI don't care if you like, dislike or even care. You know why? You are insignificant. You are pixel on a computer monitor. Nothing more.
December 14th, 2007 at 4:49 pmDude, what kind of drugs they got you on?
December 14th, 2007 at 4:50 pm"baby talk"
Really you can do better than that. We grown ups stopped saying sh!t like that in third grade.
December 14th, 2007 at 4:51 pmSo, what do you want to talk about now. Seems we are done with that .
December 14th, 2007 at 4:52 pmYou wanted me to stay. I said I was going to do other stuff, so you must be starved for attention.
December 14th, 2007 at 4:53 pmMust be meth as this shit never ends
December 14th, 2007 at 4:53 pmDude, I have already knocked down your strawman over and over again. You have an empty arguement regarding me and then asked me to stay and argue with you, well here I am.
December 14th, 2007 at 4:56 pmYour beliefs. as you have stated here ad nauseum are that you believe that there may or may not be a god. I said enjoy. You want to ask me to tell you what your beliefs are? Read the first sentence again.
December 14th, 2007 at 4:58 pmI don't claim any victory. I knocked down the strawman of an a$$hat. There is neither victory or loss in doing so.
December 14th, 2007 at 4:59 pmNope, I haven't won anything, just spent some time arguing with somebody. Unless you are going to send me a prize, but I doubt that.
And of course atheism is a belief system. It is the belief that there is no god. Just as agnosticism is a belief and religions are beliefs.
I get it now. You are arguing with me all of the points others were using against you. Nice. Next time let me know ahead of time that you want me to argue other peoples points. We could have saved lots of electrons that way..
December 14th, 2007 at 5:05 pmAs much as I like Groundhog's Day, I am also fond of Midnight Express. In particular the part where the prisoners walk endlessly around that column accomplishing nothing.
December 14th, 2007 at 5:06 pmGod fu*king damn. Did you drink kool-aid this morning?
Look:
Your strawman is that you THINK I said you were a Christian, which is completely fabricated. Then you came up with a second strawman where you wanted me to describe your beliefs, which is not required, since you have been telling everybody what they are and I have repeated them back to you over and over, but you for some reason can't see those posts.
December 14th, 2007 at 5:08 pmGood, so then what the fu*k is your problem? I have nothing to admit error to as I haven't stated anything incorrect.
Answer this:
Is your belief system that there may or may not be a god?
December 14th, 2007 at 5:15 pmYeah, but even though youo were wrong, you still decided to pursue the argument. That isn't very manly. Childish is what I would call it. Arguing for arguing sake, even when you don't know the position of a person.
So, is your whole beef with me that I called god the "big glowty man in the sky?"
December 14th, 2007 at 5:17 pmYou spin me right round, baby
December 14th, 2007 at 5:18 pmRight round like a record, baby
Right round round round
You don't need to repost what you say. I am well aware of it. I am just trying to figure out why you wanted to argue with me after you knew you were wrong about what I said and the only thing I can come up with is that I called god the "big glowy man in the sky"
December 14th, 2007 at 5:19 pmMe
You:
Just fu*king say yes.
Saying "I don't know" when I said there "may or not be" means you agree with me. Only you AREN'T man enough to admit it.
December 14th, 2007 at 5:20 pmI think that you will find that before we were slinging mud, you came at me because you think I hold the position of other people. I only hold my own, which I would be happy to share if you were attacking.
December 14th, 2007 at 5:22 pmYes it will.
December 14th, 2007 at 5:23 pmSee, you are right. We do see things almost exactly the same.
Here is where I stand:
I don't believe there is some almighty being that controls everything. I believe it is something more like The Force(tm) or Mother Nature(tm) for lack of a better term.
Kind of like karma. You do good things for people and the same will be returned to you. This is what Jesus preaches in the Bible.
I think that what the Bible says is good advice for everybody. Should it be taken literally, no, but are there good ideas on how to treat your fellow man, absolutely.
I think this is kind of the Deist approach, but since I am not a theologian, I am not sure.
What I do know is that I was raised Christian, baptized, r4ead the entire Bible, the whole nine yards and ever since I was very young, it just did not jive with me.
Then when I did read the entire Bible, that is what blew it for me. There are too many contradictions.
So, that is what I believe. It ain't much, but it is mine.
I would have to say that I would fall into some kind of Agnostic category.
I think arguing if atheism is a belief system is like arguing what the word "is" means.
December 14th, 2007 at 5:45 pmI meant it in the Greek sense of "enjoy your beliefs, whatever they may be, and I will enjoy mine."
December 14th, 2007 at 5:47 pmSo that we are clear I am always speaking of the church and organized religion when I talk about these people or those people. Like I said I was raised Christian and by that I mean everybody on both sides of my family are Christians. Are they bad people that want to bring about the apocalypse? Heck no. They are my mom and dad and aunts and uncles. They aren't bad people.
No do I think George W Bush and organized religion have used my family members to push their evil agenda? 100%.
That is where the line gets blurred about real Christians and those that say they are Christian, so they can use the Christians.
That is the real problem we face. In and of itself, religion is not a bad thing and religious people only want to try and make things better. Take my mom who builds houses for people, works food lines, etc. She isn't bad. Has she been used by George W Bush? 100%
December 14th, 2007 at 5:54 pmI also really enjoyed One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. "I bet two"
December 14th, 2007 at 5:55 pmAt which I would state:
I don't even think people of faith know 100%. They just want to know, so they believe something specific in hopes it turns out to be the right one.
December 14th, 2007 at 5:57 pmI agree, the Democratic party overlooks the real Christians and are trying to court the religious right, Jerry Falwell types who are the problem in the first place.
You can be religious and have religion, without having the lying frauds.
The Benny Hins/Oral Roberts, people need to be removed form power. They taint what should be a good thing. The politicians have twisted the religious folks to where there judgement is clouded.
I mean, come on. My mom doesn't support torture, but she voted for Bush twice because she thinks that he is a man of faith.
But, in a round about way, she has supported torture, because she supports the guy giving the torture orders.
I think this is where "non-believers" have the problem with the believers. They non-believers feel that the religious are implicitly supporting torture, when the truth is that because they think George W Bush is a man of god, that he would never do that. And why should they? George W Bush told them we don't torture and Christians don't lie. So, they fall into the trap.
I think a lot of heads will roll when the Christians wake up.
December 14th, 2007 at 6:35 pmComment by Spudge Boy — December 14, 2007 @ 5:45 pm
That sounds like strong atheism, coupled with pantheism. You don't believe there is a God as a personality, but you do believe the universe is united by a force which breeds recipricosity.
Or that's just how I see your belief system.
Mine is basically thus:
there probably isn't a God. Though I have trouble imagining not existing, my basic belief is that there is no afterlife.
This means we should seek to make this life as full as possible, seek to do as much good as we can, because when it is over it is over.
We do this not for fear of eternal torment or for wish of eternal reward, but because a society filled with people helping each other is a nice society to live in, and frankly, moral superiority must be born of superior behaviour (My irration at BARTLEBEE me and every strong atheist on Earth fanatics for holding an opinion not withstanding.)
I am flawed, I am short tempered and I will not stand idly by when some a$$hole declares every strong atheist, which I am a strong atheist, a fanatic, when the term fanatic, more literally applies to people who want to force their beliefs on others.
I fully support secularism in which there is no legislated religious view. A person can worship whatever they like, provided they allow for me disagreeing with them. I don't have to hold your opinions and you don't have to hold mine. This is something you will not find in fanatics.
Religious people can be good people, atheists can be bad people. There is no moral superiority based on an opinion which does not really effect your behaviour towards others. There is no fanaticism, on feeling that there is no god. It is not a fanatical opinion. It is just an opinion.
What there is, is guys like BARTLEBEE, who take atheists as no right whatsoever to ever stand up for themselves. Hence the "Fanatic" label.
And make no mistake you do get fanatical strong atheists, a lot of the time they are a reaction to fanatical Christians making their lives miserable, but we aren't all fanatics, we are sick of being used as scapegoats by the religious right, we are sick of being treat like we do not have the right to our opinions by people like BARTLEBEE and we are sick of being told we don't have the right to be angry when we are charged with something simply because we hold an opinion.
BARTLEBEE, you started that fight with me even though you didn't personally direct that comment at me. You accused me of being a fanatic, and you have tried to use my anger at it, my outright rage at it, as being evidence of me being a fanatic. My outright rage was not based on the religious argument, it was based on the personal insult by a person who has revealed himself to be nothing more than a bigot.
Sure I disagree with religion, sure I think it is a stupid idea, but I don't accuse all of the world's religious people of being fanatics simply because they believe something. You, on the other hand, seem to believe that everybody with an opinion who is willing to stand by that opinion, is a fanatic.
Now think about how you felt when you got personally attacked by me, a person who would normally be quite friendly towards you. Think about it. Now think about how every atheist who read those words.
You are not in the right in that argument. You are nowhere near in the right in that argument. You are an a$$hole for making that argument.
December 15th, 2007 at 3:01 amBARTLEBEE:
December 15th, 2007 at 10:37 amI'm new here but have been lurking for sometime and feel as though I know most of the characters around here from reading their posts.
I just want to commend you for your patience and tenacity and your willingness to stand up for logic and open mindedness in the face of such a venomous onslaught.
I would like to offer the old nugget that may apply to this argument "there are none so blind as those who refuse to see", also this whole thing reminds me of how long it took western mathematicians to incorporate "zero" into their number system. It caused them to have a brain fart of some kind until they were finally able to get their minds around it.
Anyway, hang in there and keep up the good work.
;)
BARTLEBEE
I didn't invent your position, you stated it clearly. You said that all strong atheists are fanatics. You then went on to explain that we are ALL fanatics, because we deny the existance of God and we stick to our denials.
In other words, you called us fanatics, because we stand up for ourselves and we get upset when we are insulted.
Also I called the idea of religion stupid. The idea that basically someone thousands of years ago had all of the answers, I see as being stupid.
Intellegent people can have stupid ideas and I can disagree with them strongly on one thing, and agree with them on others. You will note we agree on public healthcare even though, right now, I view you as being a bigot.
Your argument is that fanaticism, is basically holding any opinion on the existance of God. That is the sum total as to what you think fanaticism is and that I think is a stupid idea of the word and a debasement of the English language - much as what has happened to the word "Hero."
December 15th, 2007 at 12:39 pmMaybe Bartleebee, a chimp would be more fun for you. You can lie to a chimp, without this happening.
Note how I stated you are bigotted agains strong atheists like me.
I would have put more up, but there is a limit to how much hate speech which I can stomach in an evening.
December 15th, 2007 at 3:41 pmOh, and your argument as to some of the best and brightest believing in God throughout history, yada, yada, yada.
I wonder how belief in Santa would do if the Western world declared non-belief against the law for over a thousand years.
December 15th, 2007 at 3:50 pmBARTLEBEE
I haven't lied on this thread, but you have.
You claimed that I lied about your position. I haven't lied. I have stated your position as I see it.
Also, I appologised about that insult, but I will only appologise once for something.
So, that appology is now withdrawn.
December 15th, 2007 at 4:02 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — December 15, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
I have treat you to the same courtesy you have treated others on this forum. No more, no less.
You will note I did not include the statements which were specific to the guys who were unjustifiably stalking you, nor did I include the statements after I started reading.
This was because those statements were not against the atheist comunity as a whole. They were personally directed.
Nor did I include all of your statements against the atheist community as a whole, because frankly, that was enough.
That you are now objecting to the treatment you have meted out on others, is simply a sign of your lack of a spine. You have refused to take a position, even the position of not knowing (Agnostic) instead you have repeatedly insulted everbody who has taken a position as being fanatics. This was not the issue I had with you, but it shows what you are, spineless.
As does your inability to accept an appology or issue one.
December 15th, 2007 at 4:19 pmAtheism as a Stealth Religion
Posted December 14, 2007 - Huffington Post
In today's polarized world, the conflict between atheism and religion is shaping up to be the fight of the century. In this corner, the new atheists, flexing their muscles with books such as God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens and The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. In that corner, the religious fundamentalists, who are responsible for 9/11, the Christian takeover of America, polluting the minds of their children, and numberless other atrocities. It's science and reason against dogmatism and blind faith, making it obvious who the enlightened liberal should root for.
Read the rest of the article:
December 15th, 2007 at 8:17 pmhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sloan-wilson/atheism-as-a-stealth-reli_b_76901.html
Er, yeah, us atheists? We have never particularly noticed the religious being any more humble then anybody else.
Unless of course, you think Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter and both Bushs are images of distinct humility.
Here is a link to the basics of the story of Jeremy Hall (The guy I referenced earlier.)
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/62989/
You see, how he got treated, that is a result of fanaticism.
Atheists have been dealing with anti-atheist fervour since the 1950's when "Under God" got included in the pledge of allegiance. You have had two weeks of being insulted repeatedly, atheists have had presidential candidates declaring them non-citizens and non patriots, and going on to win the presidency. (GHW Bush.)
Atheists have had hit pieces written about other people with names like "Godless" in them, intended to rile the masses against us. We get preached against in Pentecostal churches, we get called immoral on a daily basis simply because we do not believe.
Atheists who come out run the risk of being cast out of their families by their families - simply because they don't believe.
I know of atheists who, living in America, can't have a Darwin fish on their cars or their cars get keyed. I know of atheists who have tried to organise counter marches to religious protests, and been told by the police that they will not be protected.
While the religious are releasing tract after tract calling on people to convert, the second an atheist author comes out putting out a counter argument, you have endless shouts of protest - that we shouldn't be doing that. Look at the explosion of atheist books, fairly flipping recent isn't it? And the religious can't take it even after years of them declaring everthing bad "Godless."
Heck, we even get identified directly with Hitler, who was a Christian who persecuted atheists along with the Jews, the Gypsies and the the political left.
You are moaning about 2 weeks of getting exactly the same treatment. Please. It is like a white guy moaning about being called a honky.
And atheism? It isn't a religion, it doesn't even have a central doctrine, but it is a religious viewpoint.
December 16th, 2007 at 2:44 amYou moan about how nasty atheists are being to you on a blog.
How about seeing how CNN views atheists.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/i_had_no_idea_cnn_had_gotten_t.php
December 16th, 2007 at 5:10 amIn an effort to bring a little more light and less heat to this discussion, the main thing I think is to realize that all of the nastiness that has and I'm sure will continue to be used on this board in attacking each other does not help to accomplish the goal of all of this discourse - which is the communication and understanding of each others points.
December 16th, 2007 at 7:19 amI would encourage all to carefully read the posts of the person you are about to attack to see if you do understand fully just exactly what they are trying to say before you break out the heavy artillery.
In the case of this discussion people just don't seem to be willing or able to comprehend the simple statement by BARTLEBEE - "I don't know".
Why is this so difficult to understand? Even a tard' as people around here like to say should be able to see that "I don't know" is not a belief? It does not say "I believe that I do not know". Simply "I do not know". This is the basis of an open mind and allows for further growth and exploration. I would suggest that "I do not know" is the foundation upon which science itself is built.
Marauder
There is nothing wrong with "I don't know." Call it what it is, agnostic, it is fine.
What is not fine is saying "I refuse to take a position but everybody other than me is a fanatic."
What is not fine, is declaring the entire atheist movement liars.
What is not fine is then acting surprised when atheists start slinging insults because they figure if we are going to get the name we may as well express our feelings towards the person making bigoted attacks against us.
Now I included BARTLEBEE's clarification of just who he was talking about. I do not see why I should act with the least bit of respect towards someone who says of atheists: atheists are as fanatical as the overly religious loons out there.
No difference whatsoever.
:\
Cept the religious folk tend to be more likable
Frankly, BARTLEBEE is a bigot.
December 16th, 2007 at 10:23 amBruce:
December 16th, 2007 at 12:20 pmAs I understand BARTLEBEE's argument, the problem comes from atheists unwillingness to admit to themselves that their understanding of existence is not a belief system but instead the "TRUTH".
This assertion is the source of the fanaticism referred to by BARTLEBEE. The real truth of the human perception of reality is that we do not know absolutely for sure. The atheists argument is a theory like evolution is in which all of the evidence points to evolution as being true but even evolutionary scientists will tell you that it, at the end of the day is still a theory albeit an extremely well supported theory. All of the scientifically documented evidence points to atheism as being true but ultimately like evolution at the end of the day a theory. In discussions like this it is imperative to keep in mind that there is NO way to finally prove the ultimate "TRUTH". Which leads to the conclusion we don't know for sure, we have our ideas of what the truth is but no way to prove it. Therefore an open mind is the optimal condition.
Those of a religious bent would also be behooved to adhere to this way of thinking. I would be much less annoyed by Christians if they would simply admit that they may be mistaken in regard to their beliefs. It is their absolute assertion that the Bible etc. are infallible that galls me.
Favorite reptard Christmas story? The Little Match Girl, all snowy and cold and isn't it just wonderful when the dying girl's grandmother appears to her as she freezes? God bless your warm little hearts.
December 16th, 2007 at 3:18 pmDon’t challenge it, and they glibly mock the people of faith, like this idiot marlow just did.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 16, 2007 @ 6:13 pm
Whoa, Nelly, I think someone's misunderestimating things a little...
December 16th, 2007 at 8:38 pm'Ol Hoss, faith's got nothin to do with it, and I wasn't mocking ANYONE'S religion. You're a Christian? Good to hear it. Make a show of defending Christmas against non-existent attacks WHILE whining that we can't help sick children instead of bombing countries that did us no harm? Afraid I'll have to jump down your throat sideways on that one, pardner. But I don't think that's what you're trying to say. So why are you calling me an idiot for attacking right wing hypocrites?
December 16th, 2007 at 8:47 pmBartlebee
I didn't invent that quote. You said it. You get to take the heat for it, unless you want to retract it or say you didn't mean it to apply to all strong atheists.
You can still apply it to me, that is just a personal insult, but I object strongly, to you applying it to all atheists, theists and anybody with a theory. That is bigotry.
Marauder
That is more or less my feelings on the matter. I mean, I feel that the specifically Christian God, as he is described, is not likely to exist to the same extent as fairies at the bottom of my garden.
And you can't take mass testimony against that because, for a lot of the time disagreement was illegal, in fact it was only in the late 1700's to early 1800's that it stopped being illegal. You can't take the Church, because there are definite lies contained in the Bible (The census when Jesus was born and the blood libel against the Jews.)
That said, gods are possible and though it is for the theist to prove they exist (Because hey, assertions need proof) and the balance of probability is against them, we cannot absolutely disprove what doesn't exist without it having specific testable qualities.
We don't know all the answers, I am pretty sure that gods don't exist, but I can be wrong.
Just don't blanket term all atheists fanatics simply because they hold an opinion based on where the evidence is pointing. Being a fanatic takes more then just believing something, a lucky rabits foot or a horse shoe doesn't make a fanatic of someone who is just a little bit superstitious.
Nor does belief that the Democrats are better suited to running the country make a Democrat a fanatic. Nor does a preference for cardamon in curries make a chef a fanatic. Fanatic, as it is applied, really does go towards those who are willing to kill and die to force their beliefs on others. It is an extreme belief not because of its content but the extreme (As in, going beyond just blogging about it) fervor with which it is supported.
It is a term we apply to guys like Osama Bin Laden, it is a term we apply to guys who bomb abortion clinics. It applies to guys like Timothy McVeigh and to the American taliban type Christian. It isn't even all fundementalists who are fanatics, the Amish are not fanatics, the Pentecostal Church is not populated by 100% fanatics (Though they do have a fair portion of them.)
To call people fanatics simply because of what they believe and not the intensity with which they believe it, that's wrong and it is a strong insult to all of those who hold a particular opinion.
December 17th, 2007 at 2:29 amLurkers , CTRL F the following.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:44 pm
Go read it.
December 18th, 2007 at 3:47 amOh, and BART
Calling me a liar? Doesn't work when you are the one who is lying.
December 18th, 2007 at 3:51 amNo you festering carbuncle on the anus of illiteracy, if you’d try reading the first 3000 times I posted my whole “diatribe†you’d it stated that people who MAKE CLAIMS THEY CANNOT PROVE are FANATICAL.
Like you.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 12:52 am
You then go on to proclaim that atheists cannot prove that god doesn't exist, which makes them fanatics, and of course, the religious can't prove that god exists which makes them fanatics too.
In short: “I refuse to take a position but everybody other than me is a fanatic.â€
Also, when I am directly quoting someone I put it in italics or blockquotes. When I am paraphrasing someone's point, I use "."
December 18th, 2007 at 12:51 pmAnatomy of a liar
BartleBee claims his comments were only directed at those two atheists who were attacking him.
First read
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 11:44 pm
Then read
To cover that obvious lie, BARTLEBEE then accused people of lying when pointing out just what he said.
Needless to say, if he had gotten into an argument with a black guy and characterised all black people as being fanatics, there would be more than one black guy coming on these forums and attacking him as an inbred racist pig.
That he expects it to be different when he accuses everyone who thinks there is no god of being a fanatic, strikes me as being somewhat odd.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:10 amAww, poor bigotted Bartlebee who thinks that all atheists who actually defend their beliefs (Or lack thereof) in the face of religious people calling them ammoral, genocidal, evil condemned to hell fiends are fanatics.
Aww, lets all feel sorry for poor bigotted Bartlebee, after all, it isn't like he called all strong atheists the equivelent of guys who fly planes into buildings, just less likeable now is it?
Or like he called all strong atheists the equivelant of guys who protest funerals, but just less likeable is it?
Or like he called all strong atheists the equivelent of guys who declare hits out on people who write objectionable books about their belief system, but just less likeable now is it?
Or like he called all strong atheists the equivelent of guys who go around burning crosses on people's lawns, but just less likeable now is it?
Yeah, us atheists must really respect the spineless worm who proclaims he just hasn't made his mind up but that all theists, atheists or anybody with a position on God are fanatics now should we?
Yeah and if someones gets into an argument with a pair of black guys, well it is perfectly acceptable to proclaim all black guys to be fanatics now isn't it?
Bartlebee, those atheists who started the fight with you were in the wrong. They were acting like jackasses. That doesn't change you turning around and accusing all strong atheists of being fanatics.
You warranted the attack. You are a bigot, you are the reason why atheists cannot come out as atheists for fear of social rejection because the second an atheist stands up for himself there will be Bartlebee, of the moderate, reasonable left calling him a fanatic like a religious variant of Lieberman.
You want to know why religion gets mocked? Soldiers getting death threats because they want to put together a group meeting between atheists.
Religious people trying to proclaim that atheists cannot be citizens of America or patriotic towards America.
61% of America's population would never vote for an atheist president.
There are American cops who will not protect atheists counter protesting a religious protest.
A frigging Darwin fish on an atheists car is an open invitation to get that car keyed.
You have CNN, showing a story about an atheist family being ostracised from their community simply for not believing, and CNN's consensus being that the atheists brought it upon themselves.
And you have cowards like you, who can't even take a position on the argument over God's existance saying "Ooh, don't stand up for yourselves, be cowardly little mice because if you stand up for yourself you will be a FANATIC!"
This is not about all agnostics. Most agnostics, are great people who just haven't come to a conclusion past "I don't know." This is about you coming on here and proclaiming, as those posts showed, that all strong atheists are fanatics.
Perfectly intellegent people can be religious. Lots of nice, reasonable people are religious. They are not fanatics simply because they believe something I feel to be incorrect. I can say with a clear conscience that I think their beliefs are stupid, but that doesn't make them stupid in the least.
And hey, they probably think that my opinion is stupid. Doesn't make me stupid, and it doesn't mean they think I am a fanatic.
You on the other hand, come on here and decide that all atheists are fanatics simply because they hold a different opinion to you. And lets be honest here, you think the same about all religious people too, because hey, your argument cuts both ways, you just think the religious guys who blew up the two towers are more likeable.
That is what defines the difference between you, a bigot, and me, someone who holds an opinion. This is what seperates you, a bigot, and say, Martin Luther King, who held an opinion.
December 24th, 2007 at 10:51 amBARTLEBEE
Nothing wrong with "I don't know" but there is everything wrong with taking "I don't know" as an excuse to attack everyone with an opinion on the subject as fanatics.
Oh, and when you call all strong atheists fanatics? Yeah, the guys who flow those planes into those towers? They were fanatics. People taking BS on a bunch of websites? Welcome to the frigging internt buddy.
Don't deny what you posted BARTLEBEE, all your denials show is that you know you were in the wrong and now you are backtracking like crazy on it.
December 26th, 2007 at 12:26 pm