Why are athiests so hated in the USA?

[clambake]

Just because one is a book of poetry doesn't automatically discredit the book of history.

which one is poetry?

by the way, history is what the powerful agreed believe. then it's spread.

[Bill_Brasky]

If you are against abortion, are you also against the death penalty?


Oh, and heres a little article on how quickly the pro lifers change when they find themselves in a predicament:
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

[101A]

I am.

[Blake]

Why do you care so much about what other people believe? What do you hope to gain? You obviously feel intellectually superior to any naive believer, can't you just be comfortable with your superiority and not attempt to belittle their feeble-minded selves?

I hope to gain truth, tbh.

Religious zealots that try to push their agendas into public policies make me uncomfortable. If they can prove that the Bible is the truth without shoving it down my throat, then by all means, I'm all ears.

Currently I find belief in the Bible as silly as belief in Zeus.

Would we really disagree that someone believing that Zeus is literally alive cannot be highly intelligent?


There are people who believe in ghosts. I do not.

The Bible mentions ghosts, ftr.


I do not seek out those people, ridicule their beliefs, and attempt to convince them of the error of their ways. As D Reign pointed out, there are myriad Christians who do believe it their mission to "spread the good news" (Christ told us to, after all). Those pushy Christians are almost universally ridiculed, bemoaned and despised not only among the posters on this board, but everywhere else, as well.

You are behaving very much like THOSE Christians.

No shit I despise and ridicule pushy Christians.

I have no mission to convert anyone here or anywhere else. That's a terrible assumption on your part.

[SAScrub]

If you are against abortion, are you also against the death penalty?

I'm not opposed to it. What does one have to do with the other?

[Blake]

which one is poetry?

Psalms ftr.

Song of Solomon had some nice stuff as well

[Wild Cobra]

I am.
Funny how the mind works. those two words triggered this:

QhEaHcQgyLs

I'm not a Neil Diamond fan at all, but I like this one.

[Winehole23]

Religious zealots that try to push their agendas into public policies make me uncomfortable.Big deal. Everybody pushes their preferences in public policy.

[Blake]

Nah. You're just an asshole.
I mentioned it in passing and moved on. You're the whiner who can't let go.

Agreed I'm an asshole but your attempts have ranged from mediocre to poor. Imo.

You are mistaking my questions and points as whining. There is no mistaking that you have consistently whined about me in this thread.

Hell, whining about the current state of this forum in general has become common place for you.

[Bill_Brasky]

I'm not opposed to it. What does one have to do with the other?

They are both the act of killing a person by other people.

[Bill_Brasky]

Big deal. Everybody pushes their preferences in public policy.

It's one thing if that preference or belief has facts and data backing it in order to properly persuade those with an open mind, it's quite another if that preference is based on a 2000 year old book.

[Winehole23]

@Blake: no matter how much you try to make it about me, any fair reading will disclose that this thread is all about you whining about how awful Christianity and Christians are. for about the thousandth time.

[Bill_Brasky]

@Blake: no matter how much you try to make it about me, any fair reading will disclose that this thread is all about you whining about how awful Christianity and Christians are. for about the thousandth time.

IOW:

*sticks fingers in ears*

LALALALALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU LALALALALALALA

[Winehole23]

It's one thing if that preference or belief has facts and data backing it in order to properly persuade those with an open mind, it's quite another if that preference is based on a 2000 year old book.Your open-minded, rational beliefs are of course superior to the ancient superstitions of others and deserve preference over them. Unfortunately, in politics everybody gets to play, and the viewpoint that is most progressive and rational does not always win.

Sorry you can't kick people you don't like out of the sandbox or prevent their views from being considered, but at least you can pretend here that they have no place in the conversation. Hope that's a slight consolation.

[SAScrub]

They are both the act of killing a person by other people.

One is innocent and killed as a matter of convenience.

The other is guilty and killed as a matter of punishment.

[Bill_Brasky]

One is innocent and killed as a matter of convenience.

The other is guilty and killed as a matter of punishment.

What gives us the right to determine whether or not someone deserves to die, regardless of circumstance?

[Winehole23]

IOW:

*sticks fingers in ears*

LALALALALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU LALALALALALALAI saw the part where Blake says I'm whiny and suck at conversation. Was there something else he said that you'd have me address?

[ElNono]

One is innocent and killed as a matter of convenience.

Not in all cases.

Also then, that whole "human or not-human" was basically a strawman, since apparently there's some merit-based strings attached too...

[ElNono]

Oh...and gay marriage too, right...let's see. Gays have the exact same rights today as I do. They don't want equal rights, they want special rights. Should they have them? Who knows...but they don't have any less rights than I do today.

No they don't. This was pointed out a few days ago in the Prop 8 thread...


There are also benefits under the Internal Revenue Code, health and survival benefits in a variety of fields, statutory inheritance rights for those who die intestate -- just to name a few.

[ElNono]

Come on, rascal...

We need a "Entering The Matrix is a game changer" post... :lol

[Blake]

Big deal. Everybody pushes their preferences in public policy.

True, they do.

I do think though that creationists trying to shove their ideology into public school science text books is a bigger deal than other issues, to speak of one issue in particular.

[Winehole23]

That's a real gripe. I have no problem with keeping public schools free of sectarian indoctrination.

[SAScrub]

What gives us the right to determine whether or not someone deserves to die, regardless of circumstance?

Our government. I'm not too passionate about the death penalty, so I'd they decide to do away with it I'd be fine. I could argue for it if I needed to.

[SAScrub]

Not in all cases.

Also then, that whole "human or not-human" was basically a strawman, since apparently there's some merit-based strings attached too...

Certainly not in all cases.

It was a little straw man, but only to make a point...which is that the only possible reproductive result of two humans is another human.

[ElNono]

Certainly not in all cases.

It was a little straw man, but only to make a point...which is that the only possible reproductive result of two humans is another human.

Would you equate "collateral" killings in wars to abortion? After all, they're innocent victims too.

[SAScrub]

No they don't. This was pointed out a few days ago in the Prop 8 thread...

In terms of marriage rights, yes they do.

[baseline bum]

Oh...and gay marriage too, right...let's see. Gays have the exact same rights today as I do. They don't want equal rights, they want special rights. Should they have them? Who knows...but they don't have any less rights than I do today.

This point is flat-out ridiculous. You have the right to marry the person you're sexually attracted to if that person also consents.

[101A]

This point is flat-out ridiculous. You have the right to marry the person you're sexually attracted to if that person also consents.

Marriage and sex.

lol.

You ever been married?

[baseline bum]

I love the persecuted Christian whining I always hear too, as if us atheists are saying we want to make their superstition illegal or force priests to marry fags in front of a crying Baby Jesus. They want to deny the pursuit of happiness to a segment of the population, and act like those who don't follow their ideology are the intolerant ones even though I never hear an atheist trying to deny the rights of bible-thumpers to marry. Christians are the kings of false equivalences in these kind of debates.

[baseline bum]

Marriage and sex.

lol.

You ever been married?

But sexual attraction is the main reason people marry, no?

[101A]

But sexual attraction is the main reason people marry, no?

My post was strictly meant as ironic humor.

However, to answer you question: "No". Sex is the result of sexual attraction. Marriage is the result of love, IMO. (Sexual attraction being a component of that) (looks at own post-marriage girth and has epiphany regarding lack of sex - then continues eating krispy kreme)

[SAScrub]

Would you equate "collateral" killings in wars to abortion? After all, they're innocent victims too.

Sort of...it is the death of an innocent, but they at least had a fighting chance to defend themselves.

[baseline bum]

My post was strictly meant as ironic humor.

However, to answer you question: "No". Sex is the result of sexual attraction. Marriage is the result of love, IMO. (Sexual attraction being a component of that) (looks at own post-marriage girth and has epiphany regarding lack of sex - then continues eating krispy kreme)

You gotta eat the pussy tbh

[SAScrub]

This point is flat-out ridiculous. You have the right to marry the person you're sexually attracted to if that person also consents.

Do you think the law cares if we're sexually attracted to our spouse?

[ElNono]

In terms of marriage rights, yes they do.

Not certain government granted benefits that heterosexual couples receive, as pointed out. What "special rights" do you think they want, since that was your argument...

[ElNono]

Sort of...it is the death of an innocent, but they at least had a fighting chance to defend themselves.

How you defend yourself against a bomb dropped on your ass?

[ElNono]

Do you think the law cares if we're sexually attracted to our spouse?

Why does the law care what sex is the person you're attracted to? Why does anyone care?

[101A]

I'd like a list of the benefits - not sure how valuable they are.

Do we care if two straight guys "get married" for the benefits?

[baseline bum]

I'd like a list of the benefits - not sure how valuable they are.

Do we care if two straight guys "get married" for the benefits?

They could ask for a semen test in their saliva.

[101A]

They could ask for a semen test in their saliva.

So we do care?

[Blake]

@Blake: no matter how much you try to make it about me, any fair reading will disclose that this thread is all about you whining about how awful Christianity and Christians are. for about the thousandth time.

My whining about Christianity is on topic, imo. You whining about my whining isn't.

Our conversation then turned to me pointing out your whining of my whining and asking the point of your whining.

I still don't believe I ever got that answer.

[ElNono]

I'd like a list of the benefits - not sure how valuable they are.

Do we care if two straight guys "get married" for the benefits?

There were some posted on the Prop 8 thread, both by boutons and the one I just quoted from FromWayDowntown. It's only a partial list.

As I pointed out in that thread, the problem seemingly is the hijacking of the term "marriage" from government to grant those benefits under that contract.

That said, I don't think religious people would be necessarily on-board with renaming "marriage" throughout from our laws. I can see where they would be up in arms if that were to happen...

[baseline bum]

So we do care?

Not really. Do a man and woman have to prove love?

[Blake]

That's a real gripe. I have no problem with keeping public schools free of sectarian indoctrination.

Ta da.

[Winehole23]

I love the persecuted Christian whining I always hear too, as if us atheists are saying we want to make their superstition illegal or force priests to marry fags in front of a crying Baby Jesus. They want to deny the pursuit of happiness to a segment of the population, and act like those who don't follow their ideology are the intolerant ones even though I never hear an atheist trying to deny the rights of bible-thumpers to marry. Christians are the kings of false equivalences in these kind of debates.Comparing the arrogance, bigotry and hypocrisy of their broad generalizations to yours would be erroneous, obviously.

[clambake]

How you defend yourself against a bomb dropped on your ass?

you run to the church

[baseline bum]

Comparing the arrogance, bigotry and hypocrisy of their broad generalizations to yours would be erroneous, obviously.

Please detail.

[Winehole23]

Ta da.Oh, were you talking to yourself, again? My bad.

I thought you were replying to me, so I responded in turn.

[Blake]

I saw the part where Blake says I'm whiny and suck at conversation. Was there something else he said that you'd have me address?

I was clearly talking about you. Is this your way of not making this about me?

I don't think your communication skills are as great as you might think.

[101A]

Not really. Do a man and woman have to prove love?

Nope.

Still wondering what the benefits are - they obviously must be immense.

[Winehole23]

Please detail.in the post I responded to you used a rather broad brush, and the dimwitted, intolerant zealots you complain of are mostly absent from this thread.

[101A]

I was clearly talking about you.

I don't think your communication skills are as great as you might think.


I damn sure know yours aren't

As you've admitted, you're an asshole - your communication skills extend only to being snarky, self-righteous and condescending. "Asshole" to a "T". Kind of a Chump wannabe - without the game.

[101A]

in the post I responded to you used a rather broad brush, and the dimwitted, intolerant zealots you complain of are mostly absent from this thread.

I'm here.

[Winehole23]

I was clearly talking about you. Is this your way of not making this about me?

I don't think your communication skills are as great as you might think.I was talking to Bill_Brasky. Your reading skills aren't as great as you think.

[SAScrub]

Not certain government granted benefits that heterosexual couples receive, as pointed out. What "special rights" do you think they want, since that was your argument...

The right to marry someone of the same gender. A right no other citizen currently has.

[Blake]

Oh, were you talking to yourself, again? My bad.

I thought you were replying to me, so I responded in turn.

You just validated me having at least one legitimate reason to gripe.

Better late than never.

[baseline bum]

in the post I responded to you used a rather broad brush, and the dimwitted, intolerant zealots you complain of are mostly absent from this thread.


The right to marry someone of the same gender. A right no other citizen currently has.

There's a pretty dim-witted response.

[Winehole23]

You just validated me having at least one legitimate reason to gripe.You don't need any excuses to gripe. Bullshit, much?

[SAScrub]

How you defend yourself against a bomb dropped on your ass?

You run, you hide, you take cover.

[101A]

You just validated me having at least one legitimate reason to gripe.

Better late than never.

I know Chump Dumper.

Chump Dumper is an antagonist of mine.

Poster, you're no ChumpDumper.

[Winehole23]

There's a pretty dim-witted response.You kicked all other Christians into the same ditch then pissed on them. That's intellectually dishonest.

[101A]

There's a pretty dim-witted response.

Dude's posts have been anything but dim-witted. He's a welcome addition to the board, tbh.

[SAScrub]

Why does the law care what sex is the person you're attracted to? Why does anyone care?

The central question is, why does the government recognize marriage, and what benefit to society can a married couple provide that would lead the govt. to recognize such an institution?

[ElNono]

The right to marry someone of the same gender. A right no other citizen currently has.

Until some states outlawed it, everyone did. And some citizen do have that right today.

[ElNono]

You run, you hide, you take cover.

And then you die. That's it?

[ElNono]

The central question is, why does the government recognize marriage, and what benefit to society can a married couple provide that would lead the govt. to recognize such an institution?

Why is THAT the "central question"?

After all, government recognizes all sorts of civil unions, religious or not. These days, those even include same-sex unions in some jurisdictions. The problem is that government doesn't grant the same exact benefits to them equally.

[baseline bum]

Dude's posts have been anything but dim-witted. He's a welcome addition to the board, tbh.

It's completely dimwitted, and if you buy that garbage line of reasoning then you should also support things like miscegenation laws.

[baseline bum]

The central question is, why does the government recognize marriage, and what benefit to society can a married couple provide that would lead the govt. to recognize such an institution?

That's not the central question; the central question is why one group is discriminated against by the federal government.

[ElNono]

Did women fight for "special rights" when they fought for their right to vote?

How about black folks when they fought to end segregation? "special rights"?

[Blake]

The right to marry someone of the same gender. A right no other citizen currently has.

What is one good reason to deny them "special rights"

[SAScrub]

And then you die. That's it?

Yup.

How do you defend yourself against a vacuum sucking your body apart when you're 10 weeks old?

[clambake]

Yup.

How do you defend yourself against a vacuum sucking your body apart when you're 10 weeks old?

who does that to a 10 week old baby?

[Wild Cobra]

who does that to a 10 week old baby?
Some people start counting age at conception. South Koreans do, and probably most Asian Cultures.

You do, however know, he meant 10 week old fetus... right?

[clambake]

You do, however know, he meant 10 week old fetus... right?

hard to tell with this crowd.

what do you want to do with that baby.....if it needs assistance?

[Winehole23]

Is this your way of not making this about me?Talking to other posters? Not at all. There are plenty of other posters I banter with on a regular basis.

Your whining that picking on you is some sort of hobby of mine has little basis in fact, but it chimes well with your cranky old man world weariness and your persecution fantasy. Just because we're talking doesn't make it all about you.

[ElNono]

How do you defend yourself against a vacuum sucking your body apart when you're 10 weeks old?

So you agree neither has a fighting chance from sudden killing... perhaps the only difference being that the adult person might actually be aware of what ended his life (not that it makes that much difference, they're both dead).

In other words, as long as we can rationalize that the killing is somewhat justified or serves a "greater purpose", then it's OK.

Sounds good to me.

[SAScrub]

Why is THAT the "central question"?

After all, government recognizes all sorts of civil unions, religious or not. These days, those even include same-sex unions in some jurisdictions. The problem is that government doesn't grant the same exact benefits to them equally.

And the govt. recognizes those unions for what reason? Just for shits and giggles? Or, is there some potential value (perceived or realized) that those unions provide to society and/or it's government that offset the cost of the benefits provided?

[clambake]

And the govt. recognizes those unions for what reason? Just for shits and giggles? Or, is there some potential value (perceived or realized) that those unions provide to society and/or it's government that offset the cost of the benefits provided?

what?

[SAScrub]

What is one good reason to deny them "special rights"

Tell me when I said to deny them those rights.

[baseline bum]

what?

It's like when the government saw value in keeping the darkies picking cotton for free.

[Blake]

I'd like a list of the benefits - not sure how valuable they are.

Do we care if two straight guys "get married" for the benefits?

No. Should we?

[clambake]

It's like when the government saw value in keeping the darkies picking cotton for free.

no shit

[SAScrub]

So you agree neither has a fighting chance from sudden killing... perhaps the only difference being that the adult person might actually be aware of what ended his life (not that it makes that much difference, they're both dead).

In other words, as long as we can rationalize that the killing is somewhat justified or serves a "greater purpose", then it's OK.

Sounds good to me.

Take a second, go back, re-read the back and forth, then explain to us how you drew the conclusion that I said it was justified to kill an innocent...and when the term "greater purpose" was introduced into my argument.

All I did was explain the difference between an abortion and collateral damage.

[ElNono]

And the govt. recognizes those unions for what reason? Just for shits and giggles? Or, is there some potential value (perceived or realized) that those unions provide to society and/or it's government that offset the cost of the benefits provided?

Why wouldn't the government recognize these unions if that's what their citizens want? Isn't that part of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?

As far as "offset the cost of the benefits provided", that's highly debatable. Even more so with divorce rates hovering the 50% line...

[clambake]

Take a second, go back, re-read the back and forth, then explain to us how you drew the conclusion that I said it was justified to kill an innocent...and when the term "greater purpose" was introduced into my argument.

All I did was explain the difference between an abortion and collateral damage.

one is noble in its result, right?

[Winehole23]

I'm here.Fair enough. I regret the omission. :toast

[Blake]

I damn sure know yours aren't

As you've admitted, you're an asshole - your communication skills extend only to being snarky, self-righteous and condescending. "Asshole" to a "T". Kind of a Chump wannabe - without the game.

You made up your own rules about how God operates in the after-life.

I don't know why you're surprised anyone might find that ridiculously stupid.

Maybe you're surprised that someone actually called you out on it.

I admit, I'm a little surprised at your severe level of butthurt.

[SAScrub]

one is noble in its result, right?

No.

[Warlord23]

And the govt. recognizes those unions for what reason? Just for shits and giggles? Or, is there some potential value (perceived or realized) that those unions provide to society and/or it's government that offset the cost of the benefits provided?

What "potential value" would that be?

[ElNono]

Take a second, go back, re-read the back and forth, then explain to us how you drew the conclusion that I said it was justified to kill an innocent...and when the term "greater purpose" was introduced into my argument.

All I did was explain the difference between an abortion and collateral damage.

Take a second, go back, re-read my last post, then explain to us how you drew the conclusion that I ever claimed you justified killing an innocent, or that you introduced "greater purpose" in this argument...

The fact is, while you might or might not agree with "collateral" killings, I wanted to setup the point I was trying to make.

I simply don't see the same group (at least the religious part of said group) denouncing collateral killing with the same outrage as they do with abortions, even though they're both largely similar events. Which is pretty hypocritical, because it clearly points that as long as there's some "greater purpose" or seemingly associated benefit with the kill, the outrage just goes away.

[Blake]

Tell me when I said to deny them those rights.

You asked out loud if they should be given those rights to which you also responded out loud that you didn't know.

I see no good reason not to give then those rights. Do you?

[CuckingFunt]

I'd like a list of the benefits - not sure how valuable they are.

Do we care if two straight guys "get married" for the benefits?

There are, if I remember correctly, 1,138 rights that come automatically with legal marriage but that are not included with a legal civil union. If you're really interested in a list, it's very easy to find from a number of different sources with a simple google search. This is also useful: http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/answers-to-questions-about-marriage-equality.

I haven't looked at the list in a while, and therefore don't remember off the top of my head how valuable the benefits are. I know for a fact that a number of them are, in my opinion, relatively minor and inconsequential. Further, I know that most of them can be acquired by same sex couples through various other legal channels (in theory, at least).

Ultimately, however, none of this matters in an issue that's about equality. Jumping through extra hoops =/= equal. And being able to marry the person you're in love with =/= special.

[Winehole23]

Gehenna is the hell in matthew 10:28.Gehenna is a geographical place name. It obviously isn't the hell of Christian, Greek and Germanic superstition, and neither is sheol for that matter.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Some people start counting age at conception. South Koreans do, and probably most Asian Cultures.

You do, however know, he meant 10 week old fetus... right?

More dumb shit from you. They didn't have a term for zero so the say that babies are 1 when they are born as in first year not that they have lived a year.
They also do not count off on birth days but rather a new year.

Most East Asian countries are like that. You twist everything to fit your worldview; its fucking sad.

[Blake]

Talking to other posters? Not at all. There are plenty of other posters I banter with on a regular basis.

Your whining that picking on you is some sort of hobby of mine has little basis in fact, but it chimes well with your cranky old man world weariness and your persecution fantasy. Just because we're talking doesn't make it all about you.


your manner toward them is perceptibly contemptuous. at times it is abusive.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt before calling you a hypocritical dumb fuck.

Explain how the above post from page 2 is not about me.

[Blake]

Gehenna is a geographical place name. It obviously isn't the hell of Christian, Greek and Germanic superstition, and neither is sheol for that matter.

It wasn't obvious to King James.

He and his crew translated Gehenna to be the hell of Christian superstition.

[johnsmith]

You twist everything to fit your worldview; its fucking sad.

No more sad than what a miserable person you come off as on spurstalk.com......just sayin'.

[DarkReign]

Your open-minded, rational beliefs are of course superior to the ancient superstitions of others and deserve preference over them. Unfortunately, in politics everybody gets to play, and the viewpoint that is most progressive and rational does not always win.

Sorry you can't kick people you don't like out of the sandbox or prevent their views from being considered, but at least you can pretend here that they have no place in the conversation. Hope that's a slight consolation.

I know the tone of this thread has reached aggressive levels, but understand the difference of having to try to participate in running a country with those with an open mind and those who do not.

Moreover, the Closed-minds outnumber the Opens and consistently push their belief systems as the starchart does to a ship's captain.

You can believe in God and still shut your fucking mouth about it, is all I am saying. Dont let your religion color your politics in matters of personal choice (homosexuality, abortion, drugs, etc). Worst of all is having to hear every leader at every level profess their belief every fucking chance they get as if this is a positive aspect of their personality. I mean, the Bible does not remotely touch on avenues of solution related to a nuclear Iran, Free Trade agreements, the bottoming Dollar or State's rights. That people would pretend that the Bible does offer direction in all things...Im sorry, it pisses me right the fuck off. Because it doesnt...at all. Not even a little. And if our leaders are going to staunchly proclaim that this perspective of God is influencing their decisions, then it is our right to question and deride the source material.

If that is not possible or acceptable, then this mutual hatred is deserved and needed. I do not want my government being directed by anyone's God, period. I dont care if its Jesus of Nazareth, Buddha, Abraham or the FSM...check that shit at the door, thank you. At least have the decency and perspective to realize how ridiculous it sounds to hear a world leader talk about God's guiding hand in their decisions, especially when those decisions directly effect those who do not see or believe in the same God.

Me? I am not particularly concerned anymore about such things, we're fucked either way an atheist isnt going to fix it like magic either, but I wonder how non-Christians in this country see Jesus shoved in their face every election cycle and come to realize how incredibly important this complete non-issue is to so many around them.

Thats what bewilders me. Thats what makes me loathe those who I walk next to on the street. That this fucking clown next to me, with an equal amount of say as I have, puts this completely unin-fucking-portant issue at the forefront of their voting preferences. Oh, and these clowns outnumber me.

So I blame them, wholesale. You run the country which is obvious when politicians large and small pander to your superstitions daily, its your fault. At least I know who to hate.

[101A]

what?

You want him to post in crayon?

[clambake]

bring it, dr

[johnsmith]

I know the tone of this thread has reached aggressive levels, but understand the difference of having to try to participate in running a country with those with an open mind and those who do not.

Moreover, the Closed-minds outnumber the Opens and consistently push their belief systems as the starchart does to a ship's captain.

You can believe in God and still shut your fucking mouth about it, is all I am saying. Dont let your religion color your politics in matters of personal choice (homosexuality, abortion, drugs, etc). Worst of all is having to hear every leader at every level profess their belief every fucking chance they get as if this is a positive aspect of their personality. I mean, the Bible does not remotely touch on avenues of solution related to a nuclear Iran, Free Trade agreements, the bottoming Dollar or State's rights. That people would pretend that the Bible does offer direction in all things...Im sorry, it pisses me right the fuck off. Because it doesnt...at all. Not even a little. And if our leaders are going to staunchly proclaim that this perspective of God is influencing their decisions, then it is our right to question and deride the source material.

If that is not possible or acceptable, then this mutual hatred is deserved and needed. I do not want my government being directed by anyone's God, period. I dont care if its Jesus of Nazareth, Buddha, Abraham or the FSM...check that shit at the door, thank you. At least have the decency and perspective to realize how ridiculous it sounds to hear a world leader talk about God's guiding hand in their decisions, especially when those decisions directly effect those who do not see or believe in the same God.

Me? I am not particularly concerned anymore about such things, we're fucked either way an atheist isnt going to fix it like magic either, but I wonder how non-Christians in this country see Jesus shoved in their face every election cycle and come to realize how incredibly important this complete non-issue is to so many around them.

Thats what bewilders me. Thats what makes me loathe those who I walk next to on the street. That this fucking clown next to me, with an equal amount of say as I have, puts this completely unin-fucking-portant issue at the forefront of their voting preferences. Oh, and these clowns outnumber me.

So I blame them, wholesale. You run the country which is obvious when politicians large and small pander to your superstitions daily, its your fault. At least I know who to hate.

Well said, but honestly, the only politician, IMO, that ever actually meant what he said about following God's orders, was GW Bush....right or wrong, I think he really felt he was doing God's work.....the rest of them just say it to sound "good".


Oh, and terrorists...they seem to mean it too.

[clambake]

You want him to post in crayon?

a worshipper calling me child like.

thats delicious.

[johnsmith]

Then again, I could be reading DR's post wrong since I'm just sitting at the house all hopped up on painkillers.

[clambake]

Well said, but honestly, the only politician, IMO, that ever actually meant what he said about following God's orders, was GW Bush....right or wrong, I think he really felt he was doing God's work.....the rest of them just say it to sound "good".


Oh, and terrorists...they seem to mean it too.

you think god told bush to manufacture evidence to justify war?

[clambake]

Then again, I could be reading DR's post wrong since I'm just sitting at the house all hopped up on painkillers.

your back out again?

[johnsmith]

you think god told bush to manufacture evidence to justify war?

Honestly.....yes.

[johnsmith]

your back out again?

No, backs been fine since the surgery.....I don't really know what got into me today but I woke up this morning, got ready for work, and then just popped a few pills.....

no idea why.....

made work fun and short though.

Thanks for asking though CB.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No more sad than what a miserable person you come off as on spurstalk.com......just sayin'.

Oh noes!

Characterize away. The truth is the truth no matter how repugnant it may be to you.

[101A]

I know the tone of this thread has reached aggressive levels, but understand the difference of having to try to participate in running a country with those with an open mind and those who do not.

Moreover, the Closed-minds outnumber the Opens and consistently push their belief systems as the starchart does to a ship's captain.

You can believe in God and still shut your fucking mouth about it, is all I am saying. Dont let your religion color your politics in matters of personal choice (homosexuality, abortion, drugs, etc). Worst of all is having to hear every leader at every level profess their belief every fucking chance they get as if this is a positive aspect of their personality. I mean, the Bible does not remotely touch on avenues of solution related to a nuclear Iran, Free Trade agreements, the bottoming Dollar or State's rights. That people would pretend that the Bible does offer direction in all things...Im sorry, it pisses me right the fuck off. Because it doesnt...at all. Not even a little. And if our leaders are going to staunchly proclaim that this perspective of God is influencing their decisions, then it is our right to question and deride the source material.

If that is not possible or acceptable, then this mutual hatred is deserved and needed. I do not want my government being directed by anyone's God, period. I dont care if its Jesus of Nazareth, Buddha, Abraham or the FSM...check that shit at the door, thank you. At least have the decency and perspective to realize how ridiculous it sounds to hear a world leader talk about God's guiding hand in their decisions, especially when those decisions directly effect those who do not see or believe in the same God.

Me? I am not particularly concerned anymore about such things, we're fucked either way an atheist isnt going to fix it like magic either, but I wonder how non-Christians in this country see Jesus shoved in their face every election cycle and come to realize how incredibly important this complete non-issue is to so many around them.

Thats what bewilders me. Thats what makes me loathe those who I walk next to on the street. That this fucking clown next to me, with an equal amount of say as I have, puts this completely unin-fucking-portant issue at the forefront of their voting preferences. Oh, and these clowns outnumber me.

So I blame them, wholesale. You run the country which is obvious when politicians large and small pander to your superstitions daily, its your fault. At least I know who to hate.

Santorum specifically pisses me off because of his "social" conservatism. He's a cliche. Lots of kids, all home schooled, bible thumper...we ALL know the type. However, he is NOT getting a great deal of the Republican, much less general electorate, support. Last cycle, the closest comparison could be drawn to Huckabee - again not a great deal of support. Certainly they have their fervent backers, but no more so than a radical environmentalist is going to garner from the opposite side of the spectrum.

There are certain things politicians say, and ways they are expected to act; Republicans MUST pander to the Christians to a point simply because if they don't they CANNOT win; there aren't enough votes to get there....just as Democrats are limited on certain issues if they want national office; abortion, the environment, Medicare; get in step on those, or don't bother.

GWB is the only President I can remember who wrapped himself in the bible to a degree. Clinton - no; GB Sr? No Reagan, Ford, Carter, Nixon, LBJ, Kennedy, Eisenhower, NO NO NO NO no No and No.

Your rant, though well spoken, seems off base. Pat Robertson ran - got laughed at and not supported, remember.

It could be worse; you could live in an Islamic country; their book DEMANDS the govt. be in its control.

[johnsmith]

Oh noes!

Characterize away. The truth is the truth no matter how repugnant it may be to you.

Hey, I just call it like I see it and out of all the regular posters in here, when I come across your posts, more often than not, you're personally insulting others.

I'm fine with it, don't get me wrong, I just think for someone that thinks so highly of themselves, the way you clearly do, that you wouldn't have to resort to this as often as you do.

you seem miserable.....just sayin'.

[101A]

a worshipper calling me child like.

thats delicious.

You didn't understand a statement that was lucid and well written; I just assumed. I called you childlike because of an apparent lack of intelligence and understanding. You called me childlike because you are a bigot.

[johnsmith]

So are you saying that all Christians are faking it?

[johnsmith]

You called me childlike because you are a bigot.

I don't think he's a bigot.

[clambake]

You didn't understand a statement that was lucid and well written; I just assumed. I called you childlike because of an apparent lack of intelligence and understanding. You called me childlike because you are a bigot.

i think we both understand everything in this thread.

[101A]

So are you saying that all Christians are faking it?

No. I'm saying they don't want a politician, any more than DR does, looking to God/the Bible to run the country.

[101A]

I don't think he's a bigot.

What is the word you use to describe a person who makes blanket assumptions about the intelligence/wisdom of a specific group of people?

[johnsmith]

No. I'm saying they don't want a politician, any more than DR does, looking to God/the Bible to run the country.

That's my bad 101, I was actually asking the Hermann fellow and didn't realize you posted right after him.......I get where you're at.

[johnsmith]

What is the word you use to describe a person who makes blanket assumptions about the intelligence/wisdom of a specific group of people?

A Democrat........Zing!!!

[101A]

i think we both understand everything in this thread.

I apologize in that case.

[DarkReign]

Well said, but honestly, the only politician, IMO, that ever actually meant what he said about following God's orders, was GW Bush....right or wrong, I think he really felt he was doing God's work.....the rest of them just say it to sound "good".

I agree with you, but instead of politics moving away from GWBs style of governance, its rapidly moving toward it.

Look at Santorum. Now, I realize the guy would never win a general election, I am not dense. But this is the person that best represents the interests of so many Americans?!

I mean...come the fuck on, really?! Really, really? How can the fact that this clown says the word "God" every other sentence catapult him to the forefront of the Republican resistance to the Democrats? How, God damnit?! Shows me exactly how un-fucking-tied to reality a majority of Americans are. The people next to me in traffic, the guy walking on the street who looks like me, talks like me, but it so far removed from reality and so indoctrinated with superstition that his chosen superstition has become the end-all, be-all for his vote. I want to scream out loud.

Its beyond sad at this point, its infuriating.

I fully realize not all Christians or religious people are this way (except maybe Muslims...that religion is literally a way of life in its native land) and that I paint with a broad brush here. But just as normal Muslims never speak out against the terrorists in their mosques, I never see a Christian call out other Christians for putting their after-life beliefs ahead of their mortal reality.

You silent Christians are no better than that unless youre preaching the importance of where the relevance of your chosen faith begins and where it ends. But that wouldnt be very Christian, would it? Thus, your dilemma and my distaste.

Everything in moderation, people. Even Godliness.


Oh, and terrorists...they seem to mean it too.

Truth.

[101A]

A Democrat........Zing!!!

touche

[clambake]

touche

you're really sporting a wound on this, huh?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hey, I just call it like I see it and out of all the regular posters in here, when I come across your posts, more often than not, you're personally insulting others.

I'm fine with it, don't get me wrong, I just think for someone that thinks so highly of themselves, the way you clearly do, that you wouldn't have to resort to this as often as you do.

you seem miserable.....just sayin'.

Actually I am quite okay but thanks for caring.

As for insulting the likes of WC and Darrin, I honestly believe that Darrin is a disgusting fucking liar. I am not mincing words. He literally has lied to us about where he got things from in order to present his position.

I literally think that WC is a moron. As in his IQ is very low. I have watched him repeat and try to figure things out for quite some time to reach that conclusion.

When in these arguments, they simply ignore rebuttals and then turn around and repeat the same exact shit, I admit it makes me mad so I go off a bit. Sorry if that bothers you. They really bother me.

Its not like I talk to everyone as such far from it but if you keep saying lies and stupid shit then you get that side of me. Sorry.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So are you saying that all Christians are faking it?

Faith is faking it if what you have faith in is not true at the end of the day.

[DarkReign]

Santorum specifically pisses me off because of his "social" conservatism. He's a cliche. Lots of kids, all home schooled, bible thumper...we ALL know the type. However, he is NOT getting a great deal of the Republican, much less general electorate, support. Last cycle, the closest comparison could be drawn to Huckabee - again not a great deal of support. Certainly they have their fervent backers, but no more so than a radical environmentalist is going to garner from the opposite side of the spectrum.

Salient point.


There are certain things politicians say, and ways they are expected to act; Republicans MUST pander to the Christians to a point simply because if they don't they CANNOT win; there aren't enough votes to get there....just as Democrats are limited on certain issues if they want national office; abortion, the environment, Medicare; get in step on those, or don't bother.

GWB is the only President I can remember who wrapped himself in the bible to a degree. Clinton - no; GB Sr? No Reagan, Ford, Carter, Nixon, LBJ, Kennedy, Eisenhower, NO NO NO NO no No and No.

I disagree. ALL politicians must profess to Jesus to ever win. Doesnt matter the letter at the end of the name. ALL.

Thats a serious problem for me. It isnt optional or debatable, to be President, you must accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and savior, period. You simply will not win in 20th century America and beyond.

And while your citing of pre-Bush presidents has merit, you must admit that post-Bush Jr politics are most shaped upon religious conviction. Professing belief in Christ isnt enough anymore...how much and how ardent you believe must be established. Look no further than Obama, Kerry, Romney being a Morman, Santorums sudden upswing, Palin's popularity despite the asinine comments about how God would shape her policy. Those comments did not hurt her, they propelled her.

Americans want to hear how deep the influence of God has on their leader. They want to know, that when the chips are down and a decision must be made, that the decision will be made with God's approval.

Me? I thinks its confirmation bias, personally. When all things are God, nothing is me.


Your rant, though well spoken, seems off base. Pat Robertson ran - got laughed at and not supported, remember.

It could be worse; you could live in an Islamic country; their book DEMANDS the govt. be in its control.

Look, I know who the buffoons are and who isnt, but I dont think pointing out the buffoons as evidence against the over importance of religion in American politics masks the underlying truism that is the single most important factor in American politics.

Simply put; Youre either on Team Jesus or youre Team Notachance. That is pathetic.

[101A]

Look at Santorum. Now, I realize the guy would never win a general election, I am not dense. But this is the person that best represents the interests of so many Americans?!



It has nothing to do with Santorum and EVERYTHING to do with his opponents; if Rubio/Christie/or Jeb got in; they'd be ordained the candidate. None thump bibles.

I can't see myself voting for any of the remaining Republican candidates.

[johnsmith]

Actually I am quite okay but thanks for caring.

As for insulting the likes of WC and Darrin, I honestly believe that Darrin is a disgusting fucking liar. I am not mincing words. He literally has lied to us about where he got things from in order to present his position.

I literally think that WC is a moron. As in his IQ is very low. I have watched him repeat and try to figure things out for quite some time to reach that conclusion.

When in these arguments, they simply ignore rebuttals and then turn around and repeat the same exact shit, I admit it makes me mad so I go off a bit. Sorry if that bothers you. They really bother me.

Its not like I talk to everyone as such far from it but if you keep saying lies and stupid shit then you get that side of me. Sorry.

Hey, like I said, it doesn't bother me a bit....I'm just sayin' you seem genuinely angry on this site......

And I'm sure you're not, it just seems that way when all one can do is read someone on a message board.

[johnsmith]

Faith is faking it if what you have faith in is not true at the end of the day.

So are all Christians faking it?

[101A]

Simply put; Youre either on Team Jesus or youre Team Notachance. That is pathetic.

You certainly have a point there - in fact I think, ironically, it's one of the reasons Romney is having so much trouble locking up a sure thing. Many Christians don't think Mormons ought to be in the club.

I have issues with it, frankly - and not because he doesn't believe what I believe, but because if he DOES believe the book of Mormon, then he believes there are other people on this planet who can take away his ability to get into heaven (by excommunicating him from the LDS).

[Blake]

I don't think he's a bigot.

I've never seen him communicate in that manner either.

Since 101A condescendingly let me know my communication skills suck, I hope he clarifies how he arrived at such a conclusion.

[101A]

I've never seen him communicate in that manner either.

Since 101A condescendingly let me know my communication skills suck, I hope he clarifies how he arrived at such a conclusion.


What is the word you use to describe a person who makes blanket assumptions about the intelligence/wisdom of a specific group of people?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So are all Christians faking it?

I do not have ESP so i cannot tell what others are thing and as such I will not make comments as to that.

Do I think that some Christian's know damn well what they are professing is not true but do it anyway for social acceptance or whatever self-interest they desire then I say certainly especially in politics.

I do not think that everyone of them is like that though. That is equally absurd as the opposite.

Doubt and how to deal with it is quite formalized but really when it comes down to it. It becomes a semantic argument at that point.

Now Paul and the various priest classes throughout antiquity that made this shit up I do believe they were faking it. Moses and the burning bush and whatnot. Its hokey nonsense if he actually came off of Mt Sinai. And told his people that.

I have seen far too many people lie to try and justify some authority in themselves to think otherwise.

[johnsmith]

The reason CB isn't a bigot is because after reading his posts for many years on this site now, most everyone can come to the conclusion and see that he's a pretty good dude and comes here specifically to fuck with people and entertain himself.

He's not on this site because he thinks it makes a difference (I'm looking at you Dan), and he's not on this site because he's mad at the world and needs a forum (see Boutons), he's on the site because he gets a kick out of pissing people off that get so mad at him they end up calling him a bigot.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hes making an assumption about you and not a group of people. You are no martyr, bucko.

[clambake]

101 thinks i have no idea about religion.

i guess its because i'm from n. ireland.

surely a country of such religious infancy would have a better grasp.

[johnsmith]

I do not have ESP so i cannot tell what others are thing and as such I will not make comments as to that.

Do I think that some Christian's know damn well what they are professing is not true but do it anyway for social acceptance or whatever self-interest they desire then I say certainly especially in politics.

I do not think that everyone of them is like that though. That is equally absurd as the opposite.

Doubt and how to deal with it is quite formalized but really when it comes down to it. It becomes a semantic argument at that point.

Now Paul and the various priest classes throughout antiquity that made this shit up I do believe they were faking it. Moses and the burning bush and whatnot. Its hokey nonsense if he actually came off of Mt Sinai. And told his people that.

I have seen far too many people lie to try and justify some authority in themselves to think otherwise.

I agree whole heartedly with you Fuzzy, and well put.

The comment was made "because they don't pretend to believe in God" and that comment was speaking directly to the thread title......so really, I believe that dude (Herman) is specifically saying that all Christians are faking it.

And contrary to what has become popular belief, there are some of us that still believe in God and do our best to try to live an honest and morally acceptable fashion because of that.......we don't always succeed, but most of us are good people.

Unfortunately, none of us are in Washington DC.

[101A]

101 thinks i have no idea about religion.

i guess its because i'm from n. ireland.

surely a country of such religious infancy would have a better grasp.

I hate the irish; they're all stupid /bigot.

You made a crack relative to believers being infantile; I always respond by calling the people saying such things bigots. It's an ironic insult; and effective. No offense.

[clambake]

think about what dr is saying. the white house, this very minute, is pandering to a religion known for the rape of children......under the protection of that hooded freak at the vatican.

[clambake]

I hate the irish; they're all stupid /bigot.

You made a crack relative to believers being infantile; I always respond by calling the people saying such things bigots. It's an ironic insult; and effective. No offense.
"do you need it written in crayon?"

since it came from you, all i said was "it's delicious"

and it still is.

[101A]

think about what dr is saying. the white house, this very minute, is pandering to a religion known for the rape of children......under the protection of that hooded freak at the vatican.

I don't think Penn State fans are all up in arms about the healthcare bill?

"Democracy is the worst form of Government, except all the others" - some dead guy.

[clambake]

I don't think Penn State fans are all up in arms about the healthcare bill?

"Democracy is the worst form of Government, except all the others" - some dead guy.

so, that makes it ok.

thats delicious

[Blake]

.

Ah, I see your backpedaling apology to him.

[101A]

so, that makes it ok.

thats delicious

What's OK?

It is what it is. What and why people believe what they believe is something we cannot control.

Liberals believe a safety net, and social programs are appropriate and effective methods of battling poverty despite decades and trillions of dollars of evidence to the contrary. They so want it to be so, they have faith that it ought to be so, the fact that it IS NOT SO won't change their minds.

THAT is not OK, but there's nothing I can do about it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I have issues with it, frankly - and not because he doesn't believe what I believe, but because if he DOES believe the book of Mormon, then he believes there are other people on this planet who can take away his ability to get into heaven (by excommunicating him from the LDS).

This is where I see the largest logical disconnect in 'believers.' You can point them to all the hokey shit about flying elephants or getting your own planet in other religions and it is easy for the believer to identify the absurdity.

Contrast that with equally hokey shit in their own religions like virgin births and holy ghosts and that gets a pass. its asinine.

[clambake]

This is where I see the largest logical disconnect in 'believers.' You can point them to all the hokey shit about flying elephants or getting your own planet in other religions and it is easy for the believer to identify the absurdity.

Contrast that with equally hokey shit in their own religions like virgin births and holy ghosts and that gets a pass. its asinine.

101 can't see this.

[clambake]

What's OK?

It is what it is. What and why people believe what they believe is something we cannot control.

Liberals believe a safety net, and social programs are appropriate and effective methods of battling poverty despite decades and trillions of dollars of evidence to the contrary. They so want it to be so, they have faith that it ought to be so, the fact that it IS NOT SO won't change their minds.

THAT is not OK, but there's nothing I can do about it.

poverty is real. see the difference?

[Blake]

Ah, I see your backpedaling apology to him.

Now I see you backing out of the apology.

[101A]

This is where I see the largest logical disconnect in 'believers.' You can point them to all the hokey shit about flying elephants or getting your own planet in other religions and it is easy for the believer to identify the absurdity.

Contrast that with equally hokey shit in their own religions like virgin births and holy ghosts and that gets a pass. its asinine.

You misunderstood what I posted.

It is not a fear that he believes; it is specifically a Mormon belief that if excommunicated, they don't get to go to Heaven. Meaning, if Romney is faced with a choice, as president, that runs counter to his faith, so much so that the Mormon church might excommunicate him - then actual flesh and blood human beings (in the President's eyes mind you) hold ETERNAL SALVATION hostage to our president. Catholics don't hold that excommunication = hell; it is unique to Mormons. The fact that I don't think it's true is irrelevant, and there is nothing supernatural about my concern; it's all from the perspective of Romney.

I'm not saying the belief is absurd - it is potentially dangerous.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What's OK?

It is what it is. What and why people believe what they believe is something we cannot control.

Actually it is something very much so you can control and control in others. that you do not see that speaks only of you and not of others.

[101A]

poverty is real. see the difference?

No.

My post wasn't about poverty.

[clambake]

You misunderstood what I posted.

It is not a fear that he believes; it is specifically a Mormon belief that if excommunicated, they don't get to go to Heaven. Meaning, if Romney is faced with a choice, as president, that runs counter to his faith, so much so that the Mormon church might excommunicate him - then actual flesh and blood human beings (in the President's eyes mind you) hold ETERNAL SALVATION hostage to our president. Catholics don't hold that excommunication = hell; it is unique to Mormons. The fact that I don't think it's true is irrelevant, and there is nothing supernatural about my concern; it's all from the perspective of Romney.

I'm not saying the belief is absurd - it is potentially dangerous.

all of it is dangerous. but what could i possibly know about it.

[101A]

Actually it is something very much so you can control and control in others. that you do not see that speaks only of you and not of others.

You believe you can control what other's believe, and how they make their choices? Literally, just trying to understand you; no sarcasm intended.

[Winehole23]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt before calling you a hypocritical dumb fuck.

Explain how the above post from page 2 is not about me.I never claimed it wasn't.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You misunderstood what I posted.

It is not a fear that he believes; it is specifically a Mormon belief that if excommunicated, they don't get to go to Heaven. Meaning, if Romney is faced with a choice, as president, that runs counter to his faith, so much so that the Mormon church might excommunicate him - then actual flesh and blood human beings (in the President's eyes mind you) hold ETERNAL SALVATION hostage to our president. Catholics don't hold that excommunication = hell; it is unique to Mormons. The fact that I don't think it's true is irrelevant, and there is nothing supernatural about my concern; it's all from the perspective of Romney.

I'm not saying the belief is absurd - it is potentially dangerous.

Dissemble much?

So then you do not see the absurdity in the notion that while Jesus was dead and interred he was over here in the Americas telling Indians that you get your own planet if you are a believer?

[101A]

all of it is dangerous. but what could i possibly know about it.

If I guide my decisions based on what I think God might think of those decisions - I am, to a large extent, being guided by my own conscious - or at least my understanding of what God expects from me, in order to gain his favor, and earn eternal salvation (typing to fast, this is just for the sake of this discussion, my actual beliefs on salvation are posted pages ago in this very thread if you missed it). If I have been honest in getting elected that I am a Christian, my fellow citizens KNOW this, and have certain expectations about what that might mean regarding what my conscious is leading me to.

However, if it is not God, but other people, who hold the keys to my salvation, that is no longer MY conscious, but theirs, that is guiding the direction of the country...and they aren't elected. You know. Just like people at Goldman Sachs get to do anyway.

[SAScrub]

I simply don't see the same group (at least the religious part of said group) denouncing collateral killing with the same outrage as they do with abortions, even though they're both largely similar events. Which is pretty hypocritical, because it clearly points that as long as there's some "greater purpose" or seemingly associated benefit with the kill, the outrage just goes away.

Assuming legitimacy of the war, the collateral damage (while regrettable) happens as a result of a nation's need to protect itself and secure it's citizens. So, yes, there is a purpose behind those deaths. It does not excuse them, and every precaution should be made to avoid them...but to argue they are the same as abortions is simply inaccurate.

Hypocrisy is everywhere...let me know the next time an atheist organization attacks Allah, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or any other non-Christian god. I'm sure it happens, but not on the same scale.

[clambake]

What's OK?

It is what it is. What and why people believe what they believe is something we cannot control.

Liberals believe a safety net, and social programs are appropriate and effective methods of battling poverty despite decades and trillions of dollars of evidence to the contrary. They so want it to be so, they have faith that it ought to be so, the fact that it IS NOT SO won't change their minds.

THAT is not OK, but there's nothing I can do about it.


No.

My post wasn't about poverty.

huh?

[Winehole23]

You can believe in God and still shut your fucking mouth about it, is all I am saying. Dont let your religion color your politics in matters of personal choice (homosexuality, abortion, drugs, etc). Worst of all is having to hear every leader at every level profess their belief every fucking chance they get as if this is a positive aspect of their personality. I mean, the Bible does not remotely touch on avenues of solution related to a nuclear Iran, Free Trade agreements, the bottoming Dollar or State's rights. That people would pretend that the Bible does offer direction in all things...Im sorry, it pisses me right the fuck off. Because it doesnt...at all. Not even a little. And if our leaders are going to staunchly proclaim that this perspective of God is influencing their decisions, then it is our right to question and deride the source material.Absolutely. Deride anything you like. Just take care that you don't end up resembling what you hate.

[101A]

Dissemble much?

So then you do not see the absurdity in the notion that while Jesus was dead and interred he was over here in the Americas telling Indians that you get your own planet if you are a believer?

There is a significant difference in the nature of that belief vs. the belief I am concerned about. Whether I think it absurd is beside the point.

[clambake]

a guys religious beliefs makes him worried about another religions beliefs.

still delicious

[101A]

huh?

Nope.

My post was about blind faith.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You believe you can control what other's believe, and how they make their choices? Literally, just trying to understand you; no sarcasm intended.

Me personally?

Sure when dealing with particular people. Ever dealt with kids? There is a reason why all churches want kids brought in and half of Bible stores are filled with kids shit.

I am not claiming that it is some overarching ability I have.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There is a significant difference in the nature of that belief vs. the belief I am concerned about. Whether I think it absurd is beside the point.

It goes directly to my point and you know it and that is why you are dissembling so hard right now.

Whatever, I am not going to force the issue; its already plain to see.

[SAScrub]

You asked out loud if they should be given those rights to which you also responded out loud that you didn't know.

I see no good reason not to give then those rights. Do you?

I don't personally have an issue with it, as it really has no direct bearing on me. However, the argument could be made against it based simply on the inherent health risks associated with homosexual intercourse, particularly anal sex.

[clambake]

Nope.

My post was about blind faith.

one is about indoctrination, blind faith.

the other is visible, touchable and reality.

[101A]

Me personally?

Sure when dealing with particular people. Ever dealt with kids? There is a reason why all churches want kids brought in and half of Bible stores are filled with kids shit.

I am not claiming that it is some overarching ability I have.

This started by me stating (or attempting to state) that Democracies are difficult because people make decisions for all kinds of reasons which we cannot control (other peoples reasoning, that is).

You seemed to disagree with this (I thought relatively elementary) point.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This started by me stating (or attempting to state) that Democracies are difficult because people make decisions for all kinds of reasons which we cannot control (other peoples reasoning, that is).

You seemed to disagree with this (I thought relatively elementary) point.

Groupthink. Look it up.

Our culture tries to pigeonhole into two paradigms by virtue of our two parties. Doctrine has a very specific purpose: believe this.

There are all manner tools for social and individual control.

[101A]

one is about indoctrination, blind faith.

the other is visible, touchable and reality.

You (or someone else) made a statement that it frustrated you that people made choices based on faith, or belief in God. I said, basically "join the club" - that what other's believe is impossible to control, and then used the analogy of liberal's stubborn belief in social programs that don't do what they are supposed to do is at least as frustrating for me.

A liberals belief and faith in the success and viability of social programs is actually LESS defensible than my belief in a creator God.

It is impossible for you to prove there is no God. It is however, readily apparent that what liberals believe to be true, isn't.

[101A]

Groupthink. Look it up.

Our culture tries to pigeonhole into two paradigms by virtue of our two parties. Doctrine has a very specific purpose: believe this.

There are all manner tools for social and individual control.

Stated distaste for the two party system a couple of pages ago. I get you now.

Ron Paul, an obvious victim of this. I, myself, have no home; and find posters on the board straining their own beliefs and logic to fit the mold of their chosen party.

[101A]

Got to go.

Peace All.

[clambake]

You (or someone else) made a statement that it frustrated you that people made choices based on faith, or belief in God. I said, basically "join the club" - that what other's believe is impossible to control, and then used the analogy of liberal's stubborn belief in social programs that don't do what they are supposed to do is at least as frustrating for me.

A liberals belief and faith in the success and viability of social programs is actually LESS defensible than my belief in a creator God.

It is impossible for you to prove there is no God. It is however, readily apparent that what liberals believe to be true, isn't.

bullshit. you're the one that used that as some kind of valid comparison.

.....and sad to see you use that "prove there is no god" horseshit.

[Blake]

I hate the irish; they're all stupid /bigot.

You made a crack relative to believers being infantile; I always respond by calling the people saying such things bigots. It's an ironic insult; and effective. No offense.

Difference being that people born in ireland didn't make the conscious effort to be irish.

You made a conscious effort to give credence to a book of magic stories.

[Spur_Fanatic]

I'm catholic. In many issues, I agree with some of Rome's most controversial topics
(I think being gay is un-natural, I'm pro-life, and women can't be priests)

Now, even after saying that... Whoa.
Guys, I've never though I'd say this, but you guys take religion too seriously.

[clambake]

Difference being that people born in ireland didn't make the conscious effort to be irish.

You made a conscious effort to give credence to a book of magic stories.
from n. ireland.

he doesn't hate the irish. he thinks that i think he's stupid because of one part of his beliefs.

[Blake]

I don't personally have an issue with it, as it really has no direct bearing on me. However, the argument could be made against it based simply on the inherent health risks associated with homosexual intercourse, particularly anal sex.

That argument has been made ad nauseum, imo.

It fails every time.

[Blake]

from n. ireland.

he doesn't hate the irish. he thinks that i think he's stupid because of one part of his beliefs.

I caught that.

Is it really bigoted to call someone stupid for doing something stupid?
People here obviously would say yes. I wouldn't.

[101A]

Proverbs 9: 7-9
7 Anyone who rebukes a mocker will get an insult in return.
Anyone who corrects the wicked will get hurt.
8 So don’t bother correcting mockers; they will only hate you.
But correct the wise, and they will love you.

- good advice, tbh. Now I am gone.

[clambake]

- good advice, tbh. Now I am gone.

oh good. bible quote before shutting the door.

[Blake]

.....and sad to see you use that "prove there is no god" horseshit.

Rofl

There should be a law for this along the lines of Godwins Law.

[Blake]

I never claimed it wasn't.

So that was your way of trying to converse with me?

Marvelous.

Please elaborate on the point of calling me abusive.

[LnGrrrR]

The right to marry someone of the same gender. A right no other citizen currently has.

Is the point of marriage to marry someone of a different gender, or someone you love?

[Blake]

- good advice, tbh. Now I am gone.

So are you saying that when you tried to correct the wicked on this thread, you got hurt?

Did this truth set you free?

[SAScrub]

That argument has been made ad nauseum, imo.

It fails every time.

Why does the argument fail?

[LnGrrrR]

The central question is, why does the government recognize marriage, and what benefit to society can a married couple provide that would lead the govt. to recognize such an institution?

If you're going to lead with this misleading question, I guess I"ll answer by saying why should the government provide incentives to produce children, and why aren't there restrictions in place to prevent non-fertile people from marrying?

[Blake]

Why does the argument fail?

Off the top of my head:

1) you are assuming sexual relations

2) hetero sexual people can also carry and transmit disease

3) heterosexual people may also have anal sex

[SAScrub]

Is the point of marriage to marry someone of a different gender, or someone you love?

Family.

[clambake]

Family.

they don't have families? how'd they get here?

[LnGrrrR]

Family.

Family as in two people, or multiple? Because if you mean children, that means we should disavow marriages that don't produce children within a certain amount of time, as they are just misusing the benefits the gov't gives to them.

If you just mean two people, then two gay married people are a family.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Is the point of marriage to marry someone of a different gender, or someone you love?

Neither. Its to provide the church social control over the means of procreation and thus new followers.

All it is is the priest class saying that God says its okay to have sex.

[LnGrrrR]

Neither. Its to provide the church social control over the means of procreation and thus new followers.

All it is is the priest class saying that God says its okay to have sex.

That might have been the reason of marriage decades ago, but not quite so much now. I'd say there're a lot of marriages out there that don't fall under the purview/control of the church.

[ElNono]

Assuming legitimacy of the war, the collateral damage (while regrettable) happens as a result of a nation's need to protect itself and secure it's citizens. So, yes, there is a purpose behind those deaths. It does not excuse them, and every precaution should be made to avoid them...but to argue they are the same as abortions is simply inaccurate.

At the very core they're the exact same thing: Killing of an innocent, defenseless human being.

But your rationalization that it's just "regrettable" (as opposed to a travesty!) because it "happens as a result of a nation's need to protect itself and secure it's citizens" is exactly the point. Protection of the "innocent, defenseless human being" is only half the story, even though some would like to paint it as the full thing.


Hypocrisy is everywhere...let me know the next time an atheist organization attacks Allah, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or any other non-Christian god. I'm sure it happens, but not on the same scale.

Define "attack"?

But even entertaining the notion that "mocking" or "disrespecting" a fairy tale would be considered an attack, perhaps the reason is simply that this is a nation largely full of Christians... and perhaps it has everything to do with that majority wanting to impose it's will over the minorities.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That might have been the reason of marriage decades ago, but not quite so much now. I'd say there're a lot of marriages out there that don't fall under the purview/control of the church.

sure because the state became involved at which point the whole game changed. what marriage means to society is constantly evolving as evidenced by the current argument. As for most religions its doctrine handed down from some previous priest class.

[Winehole23]

Please elaborate on the point of calling me abusive.A passing observation, no more. Did I strike a nerve?

[Winehole23]

Since 101A condescendingly let me know my communication skills suck, I hope he clarifies how he arrived at such a conclusion.My you're touchy. You can sure dish it out, but you whine like a baby when you get it in return.

[The Reckoning]

because they push threads nearly 30 pages with bullshit

[Winehole23]

it's no Quattro thread, but yeah

[Wild Cobra]

My you're touchy. You can sure dish it out, but you whine like a baby when you get it in return.
Yep.

Blake's just a super pussy.

[Winehole23]

There is no true belief. Unless they are delusional, they cannot force themselves to believe something as fantastic as a supernatural, omniscient deity. All of their posturing and polished, well rehearsed retorts are just that, and under even mid level observation, do not hold up. The theist then becomes an intentional liar, skewing the truth to attempt to hold on to that shard of "perhaps" they have tucked deep inside their mind, and even the over educated theologians struggle with the existence of a god, many abandoning it completely for long periods of time.Soren "to new heights" Kierkegaard might agree, with a completely different inflection. Impossibility is a condition of belief, not its refutation.

I agree with Kierkegaard (and apparently with you) that there have been very few (perhaps no more than a handful of) Christians since the beginning. The rest of us are inauthentic pretenders. There is no being a Christian, just becoming one.

[Winehole23]

Moreover, the inauthenticity of belief you refer to is easily glossed as "fallenness" and sin. Paradoxically, the remoteness and implausibility of (theistic) belief is precisely what recommends it as the crucial act of piety.

[Hermey]

Whoa.
Guys, I've never though I'd say this, but you guys take religion too seriously.

And they have that right, unlike at SR.

[Blake]

A passing observation, no more. Did I strike a nerve?

So you weren't really trying to converse with me about the topic.
I didn't think so.

I already admitted it's possible I've been abusive to the board christians, so no, no nerve struck.

My passing observation is that you are a hypocritical asshat. :tu

[LnGrrrR]

Moreover, the inauthenticity of belief you refer to is easily glossed as "fallenness" and sin. Paradoxically, the remoteness and implausibility of (theistic) belief is precisely what recommends it as the crucial act of piety.

I think you bring up a good point here WH. To me, belief without uncertainty is useless, a copout. If you know God exists 100%, then how strong is your faith? I would argue that those who don't have sureness must have even stronger faith.

[Winehole23]

So you weren't really trying to converse with me about the topic.
I didn't think so.Tried. Many times. You weren't up to it.

[mouse]

My passing observation is that you are a hypocritical asshat. :tu

Now that is the Blake I remembered from back in the day!

:tu

And the asshat card is old school gotta luv it.

So as long as no one tries to claim we evolved from a snail please continue this interesting topic......

[JoeChalupa]

I think you bring up a good point here WH. To me, belief without uncertainty is useless, a copout. If you know God exists 100%, then how strong is your faith? I would argue that those who don't have sureness must have even stronger faith.

:tu God have mercy on the man, who doubts what he is sure of.
-The Boss

[mouse]

:tu God have mercy on the man, who doubts what he is sure of.
-The Boss

First you must prove there is a GOD

[SAScrub]

The government gives special benefits to marriages and not to others for good reason. It’s not because they involve long-term, loving, committed relationships. Many other relationships qualify there. It’s because they involve children. Inheritance rights flow naturally to progeny. Tax relief for families eases the financial burden children make on paychecks. Insurance policies reflect the unique relationship between a wage earner and his or her dependents (if Mom stays home to care for kids, she—and they—are still covered). These circumstances, inherent to families, simply are not intrinsic to other relationships, as a rule, including homosexual ones. There is no obligation for government to give every human coupling the same entitlements simply to “stabilize” the relationship. The unique benefits of marriage fit its unique purpose. Marriage is not meant to be a short-cut to group insurance rates or tax relief.

It’s meant to build families

[baseline bum]

So you're fine with gays who adopt being married then?

[Blake]

Yep.

Blake's just a super pussy.

Oh noes! Now Wild Cobra is trying to pile on!

I can take being called abusive, but super pussy is crossing the line.

[Blake]

.....that there have been very few (perhaps no more than a handful of) Christians since the beginning. The rest of us are inauthentic pretenders. There is no being a Christian, just becoming one.

now I see where the original nerve was struck.

Rofl.

[rascal]

The government gives special benefits to marriages and not to others for good reason. It’s not because they involve long-term, loving, committed relationships. Many other relationships qualify there. It’s because they involve children. Inheritance rights flow naturally to progeny. Tax relief for families eases the financial burden children make on paychecks. Insurance policies reflect the unique relationship between a wage earner and his or her dependents (if Mom stays home to care for kids, she—and they—are still covered). These circumstances, inherent to families, simply are not intrinsic to other relationships, as a rule, including homosexual ones. There is no obligation for government to give every human coupling the same entitlements simply to “stabilize” the relationship. The unique benefits of marriage fit its unique purpose. Marriage is not meant to be a short-cut to group insurance rates or tax relief.

It’s meant to build families

Marriage is not meant to build families.
You don't have to plan to have kids to be married and you don't have to be married to have kids.

[rascal]

How will an aborted fetus appear in Heaven?

[Blake]

Tried. Many times. You weren't up to it.

You already admitted to posting a passing observation of me in particular instead of staying on topic. Hard to take you serious when you start out with abusive posts.

That said, I think I responded to every serious question you directed towards me. If there's anything else you would like to discuss, just bring it up.

[SAScrub]

Marriage is not meant to build families.
You don't have to plan to have kids to be married and you don't have to be married to have kids.

What is marriage meant to do?

[Winehole23]

now I see where the original nerve was struck.

Rofl.Your laughter is audible, but the object is unclear. What are you laughing at, Miss Jelks?

http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ksx3di3tb51qzn0deo1_500.jpg

[Winehole23]

You already admitted to posting a passing observation of me in particular instead of staying on topic. Hard to take you serious when you start out with abusive posts.The abuser complaining of abuse. Classic.

That said, I think I responded to every serious question you directed towards me. If there's anything else you would like to discuss, just bring it up.You had one or two straight responses, which I noticed and appreciated. Thank you.

[Winehole23]

The last temptation in "The Last Temptation of Christ" is Christ descending from the cross to become a small landholder with a family, or something like that.

Jesus meets St. Paul in the act of evangelizing (or something like that) and introduces himself, the historical Jesus. Paul denies him to his face and says (by heart, right?)

"You're not the Jesus I believe in. You're not my Jesus! My Jesus has nothing to do with you!"

[Wild Cobra]

First you must prove there is a GOD
How do you prove a spiritual experience to someone else?

[Winehole23]

Judas with a Brooklyn accent was pretty hard to take. JMO.

[Winehole23]

How do you prove a spiritual experience to someone else?You can't. If it were susceptible to proof it'd be an object of reason, rather than belief.

In any case, they judge you by what you do next.

Judge ye by the fruits, William James, blah blah blah, etc..

[ElNono]

What is marriage meant to do?

As far as government is concerned, marriage is a contract between two people, which receive certain mutually beneficial benefits as long as they remain in that contract.

The whole procreation argument stopped being relevant a long time ago, at the very least since IVF and surrogacy have become real options.

[Winehole23]

Matthew 5:43 into Matthew 6 sets a mark: be perfect, and don't be a dick about it.

[Winehole23]

The Christ of The Gospel of Matthew is an angry Christ. Scared me shitless first time I read it and I didn't even believe in it.

[SAScrub]

As far as government is concerned, marriage is a contract between two people, which receive certain mutually beneficial benefits as long as they remain in that contract.

The whole procreation argument stopped being relevant a long time ago, at the very least since IVF and surrogacy have become real options.

So, our government recognizes marriage because they want two people who love each other to pay LESS taxes and recieve MORE benefits at a cost to the govt.?

[Blake]

The abuser complaining of abuse. Classic.

Which I pointed out was actually you in page 2.

No complaints from me. Just a passing observation.

[Blake]

Your laughter is audible, but the object is unclear. What are you laughing at, Miss Jelks?

http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ksx3di3tb51qzn0deo1_500.jpg

You and your struck nerve, asshat.

Rofl.

[Blake]

So, our government recognizes marriage because they want two people who love each other to pay LESS taxes and recieve MORE benefits at a cost to the govt.?

What costs to the govt are you talking about?

Would it really be so excessive as to be a good reason to keep gays from getting married?

[Proxy]

How do you prove a spiritual experience to someone else?

You let them in on all the lies you tell yourself at night before going to bed because you're too weak minded to accept your mortality. If they're a pussy too, they'll believe you.

[Winehole23]

Which I pointed out was actually you in page 2.

No complaints from me. Just a passing observation.Is there an echo in here?

[Winehole23]

You and your struck nerve, asshat.I'm devastated. Hope you had a nice laugh.

[ElNono]

So, our government recognizes marriage because they want two people who love each other to pay LESS taxes and recieve MORE benefits at a cost to the govt.?

Where does the government require they need to love each other?

As far as the government is concerned, the fact two people filled the paperwork is good enough and all it takes...

[Winehole23]

Oh, and these clowns outnumber me.Not sure about that. Maybe you're getting outworked.

http://awesome.good.is/transparency/web/0112/In-Good-Faith/flat.html

[Winehole23]

The most extraordinary story I heard was from a woman in Tuscaloosa county, Alabama. She grew up in nearby Lamar county, raised in the strict Church of Christ, where there is no music with worship and you can’t dance. She says her family love her and are proud of her, but “I’m not allowed to be an atheist in Lamar County”. What is astonishing is that she can be pretty much anything else. “Being on crack, that was OK. As long as I believed in God, I was OK.” So, for example, “I’m not allowed to babysit. I have all these cousins who need babysitters but they’re afraid I’ll teach them about evolution, and I probably would.” I couldn’t quite believe this. She couldn’t babysit as an atheist, but she could when she was on crack? “Yes.” I laughed, but it is hard to think of anything less funny.

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/ft/2012/02/atheism_in_america_why_won_t_the_u_s_accept_its_at heists_.html?wpisrc=twitter_socialflow

[Blake]

I'm devastated. Hope you had a nice laugh.

Finding your obvious hurt nerve after you thought you struck one of mine did strike my funny bone.

Thanks for that :tu

[Winehole23]

There is one part that might be controversial: the idea that atheists shouldn’t self-identify as such a reviled group.

Data backs up anecdote. A now famous University of Minnesota study concluded that Americans ranked atheists lower than Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society”. Nearly 48 per cent said they “would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group” (many more than the next most unpopular category, Muslims, at 33.5 per cent). No wonder atheist groups talk of modelling their campaigns on the civil rights, gay and women’s liberation movements. It is not that they claim their persecution is on the same level but that they suggest the way forward requires a combination of organising and consciousness-raising. “We want people to realise that some of their best friends are atheists, some of their doctors, and lawyers and fire chiefs and all the rest of them are atheists,” says Dennett.
Not everyone agrees that this is the way to go. The neuroscientist Sam Harris is one of America’s best-known atheists; his 2004 book, The End of Faith, sold over half a million copies. He agrees that the situation for atheists is “analogous to being gay and in the closet for many people”, and it is striking that virtually every atheist I spoke to talked the language of being “out” or “in the closet”. Nevertheless, Harris argues “it’s a losing game to trumpet the cause of atheism and try to rally around this variable politically. I’ve supported that in the past, I support those organisations, I understand why they do that. But, in the end, the victim group identity around atheism is the wrong strategy. It’s like calling yourself a non-astrologer. We simply don’t need the term.”
I’m not sure I agree with Sam here, first because I don’t think many atheist organizations (or atheists) portray themselves as victims. Yes, we’re despised, but I think we have the same type of self-empowerment, the sense that we’re right, that infused the civil-rights and gay-rights movements. Also, Baggini belies this view himself when he reports why atheism is on the increase in America:

When it comes to identifying the main cause of atheism’s recent growth, most people agree. “It’s all about the internet,” says Silverman. “The reason that atheism is on the rise is because there is no way that a person who is an atheist can think they’re alone any more. When I was growing up, I was the only atheist I knew. I had to get on my bike, ride to the public library and take out the one atheist book that they had in the whole library: The Case Against God by George Smith. Now any atheist can go on Facebook or Myspace and find literally millions of friends.”
Johnson can testify to the power of the web. “I found the East Texas atheist website, and through that the Fellowship of Freethought, the Dallas atheists, the Plano atheists and all these different other groups and I’m like, ‘oh, I’m not alone’ … Just knowing that there are 400-plus people at least, maybe thousands, an hour and a half from here that have similar beliefs is enough that I don’t feel isolated.”
And what is that but trumpeting the cause and rallying around the variable?
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/02/05/baggini-reports-on-atheism-in-america/

[SAScrub]

Where does the government require they need to love each other?

As far as the government is concerned, the fact two people filled the paperwork is good enough and all it takes...

So the question remains...why does government even recognize marriage?

[Wild Cobra]

Where does the government require they need to love each other?

As far as the government is concerned, the fact two people filled the paperwork is good enough and all it takes...
Remember the finale of Boston Legal?

gBrL-xs0Z0M

[ElNono]

So the question remains...why does government even recognize marriage?

The question was already answered. People want to marry.

The question that remains is... why wouldn't government recognize marriage?

[ElNono]

Remember the finale of Boston Legal?

I rather read fiction, tbh

[SAScrub]

The question was already answered. People want to marry.

The question that remains is... why wouldn't government recognize marriage?

The government recognizes marriage simply because people want to get married?

[Blake]

The government recognizes marriage simply because people want to get married?

your reason was 'family', wasn't it?

are gay couples not able to make up a 'family'?

plenty of dysfunctional nuclear families, imo.

[ElNono]

The government recognizes marriage simply because people want to get married?

Government recognizes marriage as a social contract between two people that willingly want to enter into that contract.

Why does the government has to have any "reasons" to allow or disallow that contract?

Why wouldn't government recognize marriage?

[Winehole23]

I think you bring up a good point here WH. To me, belief without uncertainty is useless, a copout. If you know God exists 100%, then how strong is your faith? I would argue that those who don't have sureness must have even stronger faith.Kierkegaard called faith "a leap in the dark." I think that's a fair description.

[SAScrub]

Government recognizes marriage as a social contract between two people that willingly want to enter into that contract.

Why does the government has to have any "reasons" to allow or disallow that contract?

Why wouldn't government recognize marriage?

Perhaps "recognize" is the wrong word...

Why does government allow exclusive benefits to married couples?

[ElNono]

Why does government allow exclusive benefits to married couples?

Marriage, and who's been allowed to marry or not it's been pretty much ever changing in this country. With that in mind, politics definitely play a large role on why or how those exclusive benefits are granted, and it's far from a settled matter.

Examples:
- Pre civil-war, some states disallowed marriages among slaves.
- Pre 1967, interracial marriage was banned in some states.
- Since 1996 and the signing of DOMA, the rules under which some of those exclusive rights are granted has changed again. Although the part granting exclusive rights of that law has been found unconstitutional.