Keller is one sick lib .

He’d better check with Carlos Slim before he print more crap like that .

Religion is fiction.   And bad fiction, at that.   

This article and the ensuing comments are great examples of main stream liberal bigotry. Remember, It wasn’t long ago that people were labeled racists and hatemongers for questioning Obama’s religion. Hypocrisy abound as usual. 

Before the attacks come, I’m not religious.

The most misused title in history is that of “liberal”. “Liberals” are anything BUT liberal.

They don’t like religion, therefore they feel it is their duty to destroy it. A true liberal attitude would be, hey, not my thing dude but pray all you want. But they don’t think that way.

As I’ve said before if they don’t like meat, then you shoudn’t be able to eat it.

They don’t like fast food, so you shouldn’t have any.

They don’t like smoking, so you shouldn’t smoke EVER. nevermind that whole adult choice thing.

If they don’t like it they want to remove your choices about it. Thety know what’s best for you, rube.

Ain’t nutin’ liberal about that. Facist maybe. But not liberal.

Even though I’m a Christian, I’m not upset with Bill Keller.

Then again, I compare believing the New York Times with believing in space aliens.

I thought Heaven WAS in space?

Sort of like small government “Constitutional” conservatives who hate the 8th amendment (Cruel/unusual punishment) and wholeheartedly endorse a bloated national security apparatus and a strong police state.

well, we are lucky tommy is here to give him the benefit of the doubt

I, for one, welcome our new religious overlords!

We can learn much from God Kang and Goddess Kodos.

Kneel before Kang and Kodos! They may not be from Planet Kolob, but they are from Rigel 4!

Deep…

LOL!

This is a remarkable turn around for the Old Grey Lady.  After all, they were not nearly as curious or introspective when it was 2008 and some were asking into Barrack Obama’s religious choice. (He believes in the aliens too, Keller).

But this is also a stark turn around because — much as they are looking into candidates beliefs and holding them up to scrutiny —  whenever anybody challenged Obama’s beliefs and suggested he may favor Islam there was all sorts of editorial pandemonium about the hatred and racist motivations of anyone asking such questions.  Huh.  So, it was bad then, but it is responsible journalism now.  Got it.  Politics seems to be one of the few games that comes with more than a single rule book.

This is a remarkable turn around for the Old Grey Lady.  After all, they were not nearly as curious or introspective when it was 2008 and some were asking into Barrack Obama’s religious choice. (He believes in the aliens too, Keller).

But this is also a stark turn around because — much as they are looking into candidates beliefs and holding them up to scrutiny —  whenever anybody challenged Obama’s beliefs and suggested he may favor Islam there was all sorts of editorial pandemonium about the hatred and racist motivations of anyone asking such questions.  Huh.  So, it was bad then, but it is responsible journalism now.  Got it.  Politics seems to be one of the few games that comes with more than a single rule book.

If he was talking Scientology he has a point.

Well, the chance of aliens from space has a better percentage to happen and be found than the other.

That’s why they call it “Faith”

The muslim prince, aka Barack Hussein Obama ll is squarely behind this campaign by the degenerate left wing zealots to mock & question the religious beliefs and true faith of the Republican field of candidates. 

No matter as he has all but lost the next year’s presidential election already. 

Two more months and all ” real ” Americans and a good portion of libs will be asking….’ Barack who ‘?

Bill Keller is a loser, with a great big L.  he and Pinch took the NYTimes from “all the news thats fit to print” to garbage in/garbage out.  NYTimes is nothing but trash now.

Because our nation has always operated under the notion of seperation of church and state, the religious beliefs of candidates has not usually been, nor should it be probed Bill. Just because your an atheist you should not criticize others who believe in a higher being. Some would say it is more ludricious to believe life arose spontaneously. What troubles me is the editor of a major newspaper using his position to push his own beliefs, which is that people of faith are nuts.

If a candidate insists on making his or her religious views integral to their campaign, indeed belaboring it in a naked effort to appeal to a certain portion of the electorate, then it is essential to query whether it is the constitution or other doctrines that will govern their actions in office.

The volume of questions and their specificity on this topic should be directly proportional to the candidates reliance on emphasizing it in their campaigns.
  

You spend WAY too much time on the internet. I am a liberal democrat who spends time with lots of libs and just as many neo-cons. The VAST majority of non-belief Liberal people I know could care less what others think. Sure, there are a few that HATE religion and proselytize against it, but very few. On the other side, a lot of religious people are fine that I do not believe but there is a group who will berate me and tell me I am going to hell because I do not believe. Personal experience leads me to believe that the number of religious zealots is a much higher percent than atheist/agnostic, either way EVERYONE in this country needs to stop caring so damn much about what other people do/think/say.

He’s an East Coast secular progressive. That’s the way these people think. Keller is the very embodiment of the kind of elitism that middle America hates.

I think candidates should answer religious questions when they are asked in good faith.  When the public truly wants to understand who you are.  Comparing religion to space aliens is not asking the questions in good faith. Therefore, I hope all candidates (including the President) ignore this column and Mr. Keller.

It’s okay Tommy, you can call it what it is … bigotry.  Keller is an anti-religion bigot.

Those with the low sloping foreheads just don’t know any better.

I would call myself a liberal. My view on religion is that I don’t believe in it but if you do and it helps you in life, then good for you but don’t impose your views on me. And I especially don’t want my elected officials basing policy decisions on their religious views. As the late great George Carlins said…the 11th commandment…”Keep thy religion to thy self”.

I guess Mediaite aficionados never watched The Simpsons
At least Tommy Christopher apparently does or did.

Oh, good for you!  You’ve read Jonah Goldberg’s entirely laughable book on “Liberal Fascism,” and now, evidently, you’re qualified to post idiotic musings apropos of fuck all on the interweb!  What an accomplished right-wing twat you are!

While Keller was, IMO, mostly trying to stir the shit with his editorial, he’s put his finger on an aspect of religiosity that discomfits those of us who are not religious: the possibility that political candidates (from Obama to Santorum) might govern according to the dictates of an adult fairy tale.

I’ve lived with this discomfort over the application of religion to public policy my entire life. However, as the right wing has marched inexorably further right over the years (and has lurched into the weeds since the beginning of the Obama presidency) and as religious activists have waxed and waned (and now begun waxing again) in their influence over mainstream politics, it seems to me that the problem is reaching the crisis stage.

I realize that previous leaders have professed to lesser or greater adherence to one faith or another throughout American history. However, over the last several years, “dutiful” adherence to some reasonably middle-of-the-road faith has turned — particularly on the right wing — into zealotrous adherence to ever-fringier faiths.

And by “fringe faiths” I am not dog-whistling about Romney and Huntsman’s Mormonism. As an atheist, all religious faiths are equally preposterous to me (although I reserve a special place in my heart for Scientology), so Bachmann’s evangelical background is to me quite comparable to any other excessively religious candidate.

Basically, I’m concerned that the separation of church and state is being eroded as candidates are no longer allowed to simply profess religious faith, but must weave an explicit religious message — almost invariably Christian — into everything they do.

It’s not what Jefferson had in mind, I’m convinced. It’s not what I’m looking for, and it’s bad for America. The fact that so many of the expressions of faith we hear from polticians these days are aggressively anti-rational and anti-science is just the icing on the cake.

If I wanted to live in a theocracy, I’d move to Vatican City. For now, I just “want my country back” and I’d prefer it back without having to ask WWJD.

I’m not entirely sure why someone who believes in a higher being would be exempted from criticism about that belief if it appears that such beliefs would interfere with execution of their constitutional duties.

OTOH, I agree that candidates’ personal beliefs have traditionally not been probed, because until quite recently most candidates avoided smacking people in the mouth with their faith as part of establishing their political bona fides.

I’ve got an idea: candidates don’t wear their faiths on their sleeves, don’t promise to implement particular policies because Jesus is telling them to do so, and we won’t quiz the candidates about their faiths.

Deal?

Another fact-free post. Thanks for wasting a few electrons. The power companies salute you.

It’s not just Obama. All of us ravening atheists out here are going to eat your children’s livers in a diabolical sacrament on Halloween. (Being atheists, we weren’t especially happy about the “diabolical” part, but we’ve decided to compromise to acheive a shared vision. I realize the last statement is completely incomprehensible to you because I used the word “compromise.”)

You’ve been warned.

Yep. Personally, I think there “might” be intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, but I’m sure as hell not going to base fiscal policy on the possibility of finding out.

The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree

MAKES PERFECT SENSE!!

Really. Aren’t you all a little bit old for imaginary friends?

Well, that would be bullshit.

The pandemonium was in response to the continuous moronic attempts to invalidate Obama by insisting he’s something he’s not, which is Islamic.

And questioning the motivations of those who would promulgate lies about such a thing is just good news policy.

Logic Question: If liberals hate religion so much, why is there such a prominent religion section on HuffPo?

And why is is that I know more religious liberals than religion-hating liberals?

And I agree with the premise that it’s okay to ask respectful questions of a candidate’s religion if he emphasizes the importance of his religious faith in his campaign, and/or if the question is pertinent to the decisions he would make as President. Thin skin is not an admirable quality. Should faith be treated as such a fragile thing?

The problem with the treatment of candidate Obama in 2008 is that he did answer questions about his faith, but a small number of people simply refused to believe him, and insisted upon weirdly painting him as some sort of secret Muslim extremist. This not only defied logic, it implied an unfair judgment of him as a Christian, and of Muslims in general.

P.S. I’m a strictly-non-obnoxious vegetarian — I don’t care what you eat. There are lots of us out there, but we’re harder to notice. As is the case with Christians, Muslims, etc — the tolerant ones are easy to ignore.

Poor widdle victim. Have the mean liberals been trying to tell you what to do again?

I don’t like religion, but I have no interest in destroying it. I may think it’s made your brain rot, but hey, it’s your brain. I’m a meat eater, but I’m able to listen to those who say the infrastructure required to support commercial meat production is too big a strain on our planet’s resources. I don’t happen to agree with them, but I can hear them. I also eat fast food now and again, but when I see a 300-pound teenager scarfing down his fourth Big Mac at a sitting, I do wonder whether anyone’s talked to him about the long-term health effects of his choices. I’m a former smoker, so I’ve felt smokers’ pain, but I’m also not willing to breath involuntarily the toxins I breathed voluntarily years ago. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask smokers to not poison me or my children when they indulge.

Maybe the big difference between liberals and people prone to making silly statements like yourself is an ability to look at things with a bit more subtlety, a bit more nuance, and perhaps find ways we can all “get along.”

Really, you seem to have embraced the religion of victimhood completely.

Actually, when you put it that way, Scientology doesn’t seem so wacky in comparison after all.

Easy cdnhawk, you might upset them with your reason and kindness.

You’re my hero for saying that.

Believing the New York Times? It’s one of the oldest and trusted news outlets in the world, bash the editorial section but not the hardworking journalists.

It’s all just modern day mythology, folks. 

Those two things are in short supply from our friends on the right.

Not even so modern day. But now I get to listen to a evangelical texan again. And a evangelical batshit crazy congresswomen from minnesota. And a washed up senator from pennsylvania say stupid religious crap. And two mormons. I would have never have thought  in a million years  that I would have said wow these two mormons are the most logical and sane of the bunch . But I guess this is were the republican party is now. The most sane of them are mormons.

As you admirably demonstrate, you don’t have to be religious to be a dummy.

Go on with your dumb self!

Remember, this is coming from a guy who ‘ actually ‘ believes Barack Hussein Obama ll is Hawaiian. Talk about ‘ FAIRY ‘ tales……

How about the hateful church that the President went to for over 20 years and how that shaped his views. Why is that dismissed by people like Tommy & yourself yet such a focus on Republicans religion. No need to respond we know the reason.

They don’t like religion, therefore they feel it is their duty to destroy it.

I get so tired of seeing this nonsense and liberals being labeled as religion haters. There are millions of liberals who are believers and followers of religion. There are also conservative atheists as we’ve seen on this board. Yes some atheists are obnoxious in the way they bash religion but they are far far outnumbered by religious zealots who have worked hard to push their religious agenda into the laws of our land. Need an example?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/26/rick-perry-gay-marriage_n_938125.html

Rick Perry signs a pledge from the National Organization for Marriage which includes promising to put forward a Constitutional amendment to make SSM illegal. Previously Perry had supported states rights on this issue. Is that the Tea Party approach to less federal intrusion?
This group are the ones that have continued to refuse to show who their donors are even though several courts have ordered them to. Couple that with Perry’s association not with just religous leaders ,but religious zealots in TX, and who have been linked to Dominionism, something that should give any rational person pause.

How about trotting out the same old bullshit about Obama being a Muslim — which is what I originally called bullshit on. Your “hey, look over there!” ploy is as tired as ever.

Perhaps we should put all of our stock in science.  After all, we know that everything emanated from “The Big Bang”, right?  Of course, to actually have a “Big Bang”, you need the materials for such.  And where, pray tell, does science say that material came from?  And what created that material?  And what was “there” before that material, and this quandary continues ad infinitum. 

Yes, Virginia, science explains everything.  Now, does that mean that what many religions depict as “God” is the creator?  No.  But it sure as hell demonstrates the folly of just accepting science as the answer to all questions in the universe.  The same universe, by the way, that’s “expanding”.  “Expanding into what?”  is another weighty question for scientists, since the universe is everything, after all, but hey,  we’re getting bigger.  Good luck with that explanation, propeller-heads.

Never called him a muslim not even thought he was a muslim but I sure have a problem with a person who attends a hateful church for over 20 years. And will never understand why the media dismissed that. The same people like Tommy here will question Perry or Bachmann about how their religion shaped their views yet could care less how Obama sitting in front of Rev. Wright might have affected his views.

Go away you moron. We’re all tired of your idiotic posts.

Well, Obama did repudiate Wright . . . I’d certainly feel better if Bachmann and Perry repudiated some selected teachings of their cultish religions.

I have a little list . . .

I say this as an Atheist.  How can you be so confident in something you can’t possibly know. I have as many doubting moments in my non-belief as the most devout person has in their belief.

The default status for all issues in science, until proven different, is I don’t know.

The default status in religion is, God did it.

The questions you pose are not at all ‘weighty’ they are in fact rather simple, go and Google multiverse theory and you’ll find that your questions already have answers.

This raises two very important questions:

1. Why aren’t dinosaurs mentioned in the bible?
2. Why do you cling so tightly to the thought of your imaginary friend?

By the way, the propeller head remark – is that supposed to be some sort of insult? It seems to me that anyone calling someone else a ‘propeller-head’ is admitting that they are, by comparison, stupid.

Well if that is true then you are not an Atheist!  You sound more like an Agnostic or a Skeptic but, having doubt, you are definitely not an Atheist.  Sadly, this ignorance of the very rudiments of any particular topic is usually found over in the conservative camp.  Ron Paul folks are usually a bit more…shall I say  ”read”.  

Well if that is true then you are not an Atheist!  You sound more like an Agnostic or a Skeptic but, having doubt, you are definitely not an Atheist.  Sadly, this ignorance of the very rudiments of any particular topic is usually found over in the conservative camp.  Ron Paul folks are usually a bit more…shall I say  ”read”.  

How To Cook (for) Humans.  

What a crock. Those Republicans that aren’t still bashing Obama’s church are gleefully calling him a Muslim. Why is it always unfair to treat Republicans the same way they treat others?

The bullshit exists in the merely asking and looking into details being hailed as racist or motivated by hate.  When people began questioning some of the things coming out of wright’s church – and Obama’s wan excuse was “I was not in church that day’ – the accusations flew that they would not be looking into things like this if he were not a black candidate, and it was not a black church.  well the Times is proving that to be a contemptible lie.  Or as you put it, bullshit.

What would Joseph Smith say??  With or without his…Garments??

Sa†an’s Anus is unimpressed with those hating on Keller, especially considering the amount of criticism Obama received for his affiliation with a “controversial” pastor and subsequent lies about his purported Muslim faith.

If a candidate is going to be painted something completely separate from what he truly is (i.e. Muslim), deeper and more convoluted questions about current candidates religions are certainly most welcome.

Sa†an’s Anus does not hear any liberals claiming that Romney is actually an atheist at heart or that Bachmann is really into Witchcraft. Keller brings up questions regarding the true actual faiths of these candidates, then is subsequently called an “anti-religious liberal”? Sa†an’s Anus is quite unimpressed with the hypocrisy and inability to recall recent history amongst Republican faithful.

Questions that probe the true understandings and interpretations of each candidates relative religion is most definitely a context Sa†an’s Anus would like to see come forth, for as Max Weber (father of Sociology) once quipped: “The most successful religions are those in which forget their human origins.”

Keller also mistakenly believes that Rick Santorum is some kind of evangelical.

Ralph, if you have a “problem” if his ex-church, which had a strain of black liberation theology running through it, why don’t you tell us what policy of Obama’s you see that reflects that theology.

In other words, what has Obama done exclusively for blacks lately (say in the last 32 months)?

There’s a lot of intelligent life in the universe, but very little, if any, at the New York Times!

No two ways about it; Bill Keller is an all-up religious bigot…and an alleged racist to boot.  He is one of the many reasons why the NYT is losing more of their readership and is going down the tubes.  The NYT is not a mainstream press; it is a lame-stream tabloid that creates the news more than factually reports the news.  The NYT is a real joke!

Just because The New York Times has not seen a space alien, doesn’t mean God has not made a few.

If you think the media dismissed Rev. Wright, then you must have a busted cable box and a dial-up modem. That BS got more coverage than Homer Simpson at Mumus R Us.

Atheists swear on a stack of bibles they DO NOT believe in God, yet these same morons believe in and are willing to give up their very lives ( fight to the death ) for the likes of a Barack Hussein Obama ll.

Now that is sick……

The lying, irresponsible, duplicitous, arrogant, tax cheating, anti-semitic, christian-hating, abortionist, misogynist, extremist, America-hating, self-serving, manipulative, evil, shallow, profane, race-baiting lunatic-left d-cRAT socialists should HOPE that there is no hell – because that’s where they’re going straight to when they finally leave their pathetic, despicable, disgraceful existence on Earth.

Aw, C’mon, don’t beat around the bush.  Tell us you really think.

 I don’t know if Bill Keller is aiming at Mitt Romney in particular, or most of the Republican candidates in general, but his analogy between belief in space aliens and belief in religion is precisely correct.  Both require faith in the existence of something for which there is no evidence.  As for Dominionism, it is just a new word for an old idea.  Any time a religion gains enough adherents in an area, it tries to impose its beliefs.  Sometimes it is implicit, as in banning drugs, or explicit, as in the convergence of religious law and secular law in Islam.

He should have said that believing in space aliens was about as crazy as believing in honest reporting from the New York Times.

Selective memory at work. As your original post stated — accurately — there was a form of journalistic pandemonium when critics tried to pretend Obama was a secret Muslim. That pandemonium was absolutely appropriate, because such bullshit was either entirely cynical (an attempt to cast Obama as something foreign and scary) or driven by the basest kind of race-baiting imaginable by the scummiest critics in the land.

The Rev. Wright controversy was something else entirely, as you probably remember.

Fact: I say that heaven and space aliens are both
more real than Obama seeing a second term!

That is outrageous! The likelihood that the claims of religions are true, is nowhere near as likely as the chance for extraterrestrials.

So?  Who the hell cares what this imbecile thinks.  However, I must say that I have wondered what happens to people of the uberprogressive bent when the chip embedded in their frontal lobes at a young age starts to fall apart.  Hmmmmm…aliens indeed.

You are a sick moronic idiot

You have the livid, unhinged and wee-todded folks at the NYT fixated on ‘space aliens.’ This idiot, and the always-haughty, tweed-jacketed academic elitist former ENRON adviser Paul Krugman.

A bunch of Leftist inbreds there. No wonder the NYT needs GROUPON to plead for paying readers.

Or maybe he’s just another intolerant, leftist hypocrite, Tommy. Ever consider that?

Criticism from whom? Some commentators on FOX News and a few Conservative publications. The MSM’s attitude was “Nothing to see here. Move along people. Move along”.

Drip, drip, drip.

The steady decline in circulation begs to differ.

Yes, and what I also remember is that when it came to Wright, and inquiring into the Islam connection, ALL of it was chalked up to racism.  I also remember the NY Times dragging their feet when it came to them looking into the stories of Obama’s religion.  However suddenly the Times is perceptive when they start looking into the specifics behind the religious practices of candidates.  They are also doing so far earlier than they ever could be bothered in 2007-8.  Once again it is a double-standard, because it was hateful to look into Obama’s beliefs but they are leading the charge in being critical of the Republicans religious beliefs.

Id rather have aliens land and kill me instantly then have to live through another 4 years of the mesiah and die a long slow death.

keller’s comments are anything but controversial

and yet out come the zombies…….again….

mediaite is full of them

did keller say he’s not cool with you praying?

Well seeing as how Steven Hawking has worked out a formula which basically proves the existence of extraterrestrial life is he saying that there in fact is a God or is he saying that he knows more about science than Dr. Hawking?

Two paragraphs packed chock-full of nonsense. There was a wide range of opinion on media attention to the Rev. Wright issue and ALL of it was NOT chalked up to racism. People had serious and potential concerns about what Wright had said from the pulpit and elsewhere. And please define and quantify the NYTimes “dragging its feet,” or we’ll have to put that one aside as well.

If the Times is looking at Republican candidates’ religious views earlier in the race than last time (which I don’t accept, but for argument’s sake we’ll say that’s true) it’s almost certainly because the candidates are running on their religion in a way that’s never been seen before, outside of the rantings of fringe candidates. (I’ll stay away from the obvious question whether *all* the Republican candidates are fringey by the usual standards, but that might be worth pursuing at another time.) Acrocss the board, the Republican aspirants’ unseemly christianism is front and center and reflects directly on how they might govern. In other words, it’s news in a way that neither McCain nor Obama’s personal religion was.

And with the space aliens comparison, Keller was, IMO, trying to establish whether there was a bright line between preposterous fantasies and respectable religions when the question of what candidates could appropriately be asked arises. He wasn’t painting anything.

Has Keller ever criticized Louis Farrakhan? A quick Google didn’t turn up anything. However, is Farrakhan running for president? No? Well perhaps he’s irrelevant to this discussion.

* “How To Serve Man”

What media “dismissed” the Rev Wright stuff? What planet were you on in 2008?

That’s a heckuva choice. We’ll see what we can do for you.

To make snark work, it really needs to be *about* something. To just throw a handful of words at the screen doesn’t accomplish much.

Take a downer, man. On second thought, take a whole bottle.

At least you’re consistent: dumb as dirt.

I could see the argument.  Say I said I believe aliens exist.  How does that make me more crazy than someone who professes to the belief systems of say the Christian or Mormon churches?  Seems like a fair comparison and I don’t understand why religious people get offended when you compare their views to people that believe in aliens.

That’s not a fact; it’s a supposition.  Maybe you should change your name to just4thesuppositions

At least he’s aptly named…Tea Party morons do think like that.  Dude is Mark Levin after a cup of coffee

At least he’s aptly named…Tea Party morons do think like that.  Dude is Mark Levin after a cup of coffee

Really?  we are willing to die for Obama?  Where did you see that

One of my favorite things about conservatives and their rampant self-victimization is the allegation that people who don’t believe in their superstitions are bigots.

Religion is not an intrinsic belief, thus not respecting it is not bigotry. 

So does Santorum

“What golden tablets?”

This is why the arch bishop blasted this magazine for it’s bigotry on Christianity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoiKsgCnxmE 

“Dragging its feet”:  Quoth Keller himself — “We were late to Rev. Wright in ’08, but we got there, and did it well.”
So now they are making up for that oversight by investigating the faith of candidates, I suppose.
 You think they are running on religion that’s never been seen before? Doubt that seriously.  And I  would love to know what is meant by “unseemly Christianism”.  The candidates do not have any religious views which differ greatly from Obama’s – he has been a church-goer, and it has been well established by himself that he opposed gay marriage for years.  And I brought up Farrakhan because while Christianity is hardly comparablew to worshiping space aliens it was Farrakhan who actually proclaimed there to be a spaceship waiting to pick up believers.

Why the predilection of pidgeonholing people into what “you” think they are instead of what they SAY they are. If tatboy says he’s an athiest, so be it, he is. It is something many Christians do: you’re a dispensationlist, a calvinist, a whatever. Personally, I’m a Christian and very scared of this current crop of born again Republicans.

I”m liberal, I don’t dislike religion at all, in fact I belong to an evanglical Methodist church. I love eating meat, and sometimes indulge in fast food, although I don’t think it’s healthy. I used to smoke, now I”m addicted to nicorette. :) Why do conservatives stereotype so much?

Laughing at the irony of your post. I don’t think you’re quick enough to realize that though. Thanks for playing.

You don’t write well enough to refer to your stupid avatar in the 3rd person. I know you think you are clever but you just sound like a D bag who takes himself way too seriously. I’m agnostic so just keep your lttle mythology hammer tucked in it’s toolbelt champ.

IN 2008 people were QUESTIONING Obama’s Christianity and accusing him of being Muslim and that he would push Islam. Straw man there. No one is questioning whether or not Perry’s a Christian. There’s no doubt of that.

No one questions the CHURCH those people attend, it’s their own self stated beliefs being criticized and rightly so.

As opposed to the midwest elites that look down their nose at those in the east.

When people mentioned Islam = racism.
When people asked about Rev. Wright’s teachings = racism.
When people asked Obama if he believed some of the sermons from Wright = racism.
When Obama said he did not follow Wright that much and it was pointed out he attended services at the church for 20 years = racism.

When the New York Times delves deeper into Republican candidates than they ever did with Obama = responsible journalism.

Oh it’s so AWESOME it MUST have been GODDIDIT!

BULL. It was all over the media. Besides, the majority of media lean right, not left. Unless you’re in the camp that thinks half the Republicans are RINOs.

You don’t think there are evangelical Catholics. AKA Charismatics?

I think you may have left something out.

You’re right, he should have used the example of believing in leprechauns or unicorns.

Hail Satan’s Anus!

You are truly Lucifer!

SCIENCE flies people to the moon.
RELIGION flies people into buildings.

 This is an interesting philosophical question I think. There are millions of galaxies and trillions of stars many with planters rotating around them. I guess I think that aliens exist based on just odds lol. Ive never seen a guy rise from the dead, but I have seen man put people on the moon. Man invented the hubble telescope, and also invented religion. Man can be very creative.

Glad to have helped. Some people are more easily amused than others, and some see irony where there is none.

I can also make an interesting noise by cupping my hand in my armpit and flapping my arm, but it’s not original with me.

I’m thinking “suppositories” would probably be more apt.

Resentment much?

And I’m sure that SA takes himself *very* seriously. It’s in every word he/she writes, especially the little cross or dagger character in his/her sceen name.

“Hey man, you want girls, pills, grass, philosophy, this place has everything!  Come on, I show you good time, come on, I show you…”

What IF, the planet Earth was the only spot in an infinite universe, where there is life?  Would that fact make “life” more or less valuable?  (Note: extrapolate on the question and becomes even more profound)

Now THATS a philosophical question?

I don’t know if it would make like more valuable, but it would make it more in danger of annihilation.

You decide what happens on the “value” side of that equation.

Faith gets people to the moon.
Science flies people into buildings.

How does faith get people to the moon?

 Well if we were the only speck of life in this infinite universe I would say we are pretty valuable. But then that would just be arrogant of me:)

Now my friend you are dabbling in the realm of philosophy… “Arrogant.” Hmm, the only thing, conscious, or, self actualized that could assign value is the only thing there is? Us, human beings.

Ergo, is that arrogant or practicality. After all, somebody, or, something has to judge? But what about the judgement of God, Allah, Mother Nature? I only propose this as a way to offer a more compelling argument for the preservation of our planet and our existence. If we turn out the lights, so to speak—thats it! We had better take care with what we have? Ain’t philosophy fun? LOL

“Value” was a choice of word, to make the point.  Replace such with special or groovy?  The point is that if we are alone, that fact makes this “blue planet” pretty “special,” at least from my perspective.  

Then again a nihilist would say, what, or those darn existentialists…  LOL

“Value” was a choice of word, to make the point.  Replace such with special or groovy?  The point is that if we are alone, that fact makes this “blue planet” pretty “special,” at least from my perspective.  

Then again a nihilist would say, what, or those darn existentialists…  LOL

Philosophy is fun:) The way i see it is that man looks out into the cosmos and has always wondered is there other life out in the universe? Then we have come up with ideas on what this life may be in our minds or read about what it could possibly be in books, or watch tv shows. The other major philosophical question in our existence has been why are we here? Then man invents gods and demons to try and explain this as well and writes it down in books, or does tv shows about it. To me science fiction is no different than religion. But the optimist in me looks at real science in general and see progress across history in this field. I see religion being a stagnant force or even when they do make progress they become hypocritical.  Philosophically I don’t feel anyone will judge us if the lights go out so to speak. There is no evidence for it. We will just be gone.

Philosophy is fun:) The way i see it is that man looks out into the cosmos and has always wondered is there other life out in the universe? Then we have come up with ideas on what this life may be in our minds or read about what it could possibly be in books, or watch tv shows. The other major philosophical question in our existence has been why are we here? Then man invents gods and demons to try and explain this as well and writes it down in books, or does tv shows about it. To me science fiction is no different than religion. But the optimist in me looks at real science in general and see progress across history in this field. I see religion being a stagnant force or even when they do make progress they become hypocritical.  Philosophically I don’t feel anyone will judge us if the lights go out so to speak. There is no evidence for it. We will just be gone.

I’d like, totally, go for “groovy,” man.

Hey KarlMarx…oops, Rodgers.  Funny response.  Funny like a clown, as the expression goes.  If you ever want to compare IQ’s, GPA’s, etc., you let me know. 

Anyone can create a “theory” of why things are as they are.  Your “multiverse” comment is yet another attempt to explain.  It’s as if someone posited “well, then since we can’t explain this any other way, there must be alternate universes!”.   It’s someone’s speculation, in other words, because they need something like that to try and explain the “why”.  

But for the sake of discussion, let’s run with “multiverse”, because –ironically– not only could it plug a gaping hole in science, but couldn’t it also explain, um, heaven?  Better be careful of your imaginary references, dude, lol. 

Do you think it was important to the founding fathers? They made it the The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law “respecting an establishment of religion,” impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

Maybe the big difference between liberals and people prone to making
silly statements like yourself is an ability to look at things with a
bit more subtlety, a bit more nuance, and perhaps find ways we can all
“get along.”

Tell it your friends.

Oh, good for you!  You’ve read Jonah Goldberg’s entirely laughable book
on “Liberal Fascism,” and now, evidently, you’re qualified to post
idiotic musings apropos of fuck all on the interweb!  What an
accomplished right-wing twat you are!

How about making sure the Black Panther’s intimidating white voters at the polls in Philadelphia in 2008 doesn’t get prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney General? Holder said he would not prosecute any case that had black defendants against white victims.

Betcha forgot that one, didn’t you?

If you have faith you can dream anything, and that will give you the determination to make it reality.

You religious types are funny, you think you see a small gap in someone’s argument and you try and squeeze all that nonsense about god into it.

No, multiverse theory does not allow for one of those multiverses to be a heaven. It isn’t ironic either.

I agree that anyone can create a theory, but that doesn’t make it a scientific theory. A Theory, in scientific terms, means something which has been put under rigorous tests. This is something that religious people either dont seem to understand or want to willingly ignore. Science doesn’t ask for your faith, it doesn’t need you to believe something just because there are books that are 1000′s of years old that tell you it must be so.

Science constantly reconsiders and examines that which it isn’t certain about. That is why the vast majority of Scientists are also atheists, religion never holds up to any scrutiny and *always* relies on something called faith. Faith can be explained as: Someone tells you something is true and you believe it without question.

I would happily compare IQ tests with you but remember this – an IQ test shows how good someone’s brain *could be* not how good it is, the inner personality could be so distorted as to make the IQ test irrelevant, if you understood that you wouldn’t make such stupid statements. Additionally if you were as smart as you want people to think you are you wouldn’t have attempted to insult me with the ‘KarlMarx’ at the beginning, that shows us all what a fool you really are.

You religious types are funny, you think you see a small gap in someone’s argument and you try and squeeze all that nonsense about god into it.

No, multiverse theory does not allow for one of those multiverses to be a heaven. It isn’t ironic either.

I agree that anyone can create a theory, but that doesn’t make it a scientific theory. A Theory, in scientific terms, means something which has been put under rigorous tests. This is something that religious people either dont seem to understand or want to willingly ignore. Science doesn’t ask for your faith, it doesn’t need you to believe something just because there are books that are 1000′s of years old that tell you it must be so.

Science constantly reconsiders and examines that which it isn’t certain about. That is why the vast majority of Scientists are also atheists, religion never holds up to any scrutiny and *always* relies on something called faith. Faith can be explained as: Someone tells you something is true and you believe it without question.

I would happily compare IQ tests with you but remember this – an IQ test shows how good someone’s brain *could be* not how good it is, the inner personality could be so distorted as to make the IQ test irrelevant, if you understood that you wouldn’t make such stupid statements. Additionally if you were as smart as you want people to think you are you wouldn’t have attempted to insult me with the ‘KarlMarx’ at the beginning, that shows us all what a fool you really are.

religion and gods will always be nothing but jokes pure and simple

I don’t pretend to speak for everybody, and I have no idea who this person is. I will say that anyone, when provoked, is likely to hit back.

Jonah Goldberg, f’rinstance, is a perfect example of the “no subtlety, no nuance, no way will I try to get along” noise that characterizes rightwing shouters. I’d probably yell right back at him if the opportunity arose.

Amazing how many “anonymous” people ‘like” the bigoted far left posts.  I wonder why these people don’t have identities.  

Why is this outrageous? Religionists constantly spread that lie that being gay is a “chosen” lifestyle. While we might choose to be honest and open about our true nature, it is most definitely not a choice. They can believe in their little black book – no worries. But please don’t shove your chosen religionist lifestyle in my face.

Yes faith in yourself can make things happen, but faith in the religious sense has no bearing on reality.
 

If you are your own god, you have a weak and limited god. Your humanist twisting of my words is neither impressive nor original. In combat there are two things men call upon when wounded – their mother and God. I don’t recall a single time I heard someone call for themselves.

Consider that before you make another non-snappy smarm laden comeback, kid.

Religion is man made. Faith is not.

Which places too much power in the hands of man. That has been at the root of genocide throughout man’s history.

Sure you make that noise with your hand and armpit – I hear it originates elsewhere.

Have you got some insight to back that statement? I’m sure we’d all love to be on your level of understanding.

Just because you have trivialized your faith in God, does not make God trivial. Try not to use the man invented religion word to illustrate your reply – God is not responsible for mankind inventing a flawed mechanism to explain God.

Preach it, Brother!

Religion is simply the dogma of people who try to explain things, including the existence of a supreme being or consciousness. But to the question of a supreme being or guiding consciousness of the universe, how can you say it is fiction? Where is your proof?
Certainly, generations have their texts that were supposedly written by people who either witnessed or had heard accounts of miraculous things. We can either believe them or not. But our belief that they happened or not does not affect whether they actually did or did not happen, or our proof that they did not.
There are actually some people who still believe that the U.S. never had men set foot on the moon. These “non-believers” were never there and only heard and saw second- and in most cases third- and fourth-hand accounts (from reporters, etc., who heard it from others, or saw video that they believed to be real). Yet I would be willing to bet that Jane believes that men actually set foot on the moon.
There are many things that we believe happened or didn’t happen, and we have not one shred of first-hand evidence to prove either. Yet the answers lie somewhere.
When did time begin? Where did the first bit of matter come from? How big is the universe? Our simple human minds cannot begin to comprehend the answers to these questions, yet, somewhere the answers reside. Somewhere the knowledge or truth about the origin or time and matter and space can be comprehended. Unfortunately, we will probably never be able to tap into “place” where those answers reside. So most of us simply avoid the questions altogether, and instead focus on criticizing others who believe they know where those answers are, namely, a greater universal consciousness that is often referred to as God.
Yet without any proof contrary to the existence of such a being, some are quick to firmly and with conviction state that such a being does not exist.
Where, then, are the answers to the questions that were just posed? Will the answer to that question from Jane be as committed as those in the religious community, or will she admit that she just does not know?
Personally, I am agnostic; I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of a “God.” But I do believe that there is some “cosmic” glue that holds things together, some universal design that ensures that scientists know to the thousandth of a second when the sun will rise 25 years from now, or precisely how water or a man-made material will react when heated aboard a space station with zero gravity hundreds of miles above the earth. The “rule” that demands water boil at exactly 212 degrees (at sea level) no matter where it is on the planet, and that if all light and color is removed from a setting, that absolute black will exist.
I do not claim to be so awe-inspiringly intelligent to claim with complete certainty that God does not exist. In my book, it is a 50/50 deal; either God exists or doesn’t. There is no direct proof either way. Any attempt to say, that perhaps it is 75/25 in favor of no higher power would simply be based on opinion, since such a judgement would not and could not be based on fact.
Finally, there are many things that happen in our universe — and on our planet — that can only be explained by supernatural means. I am not referring to miracles divine intervention, per se, but to the fact that things happen that cannot be understood or explained by mere humans. And when they happen to seemingly intelligent and otherwise normal people, the argument that there is not God because we have no proof is even less convincing.
I can be anonymous on here, so I will share one brief instance. A few years ago I witnessed and felt the presence of a shadow being in my home. I know, call me crazy. I thought that I was, also. But later, my wife corroborated what I had seen and felt; she had actually had two incidents with the “apparition.” Had I not told my wife at some point, I would have gone to my grave with the thought that perhaps I had some sort of mental defect that allowed me to see and feel it. And I know that it was a being, because I “felt” it. The same way that you “feel” love, but there is no concrete evidence or tangible way to prove it. You know when you feel it, and you know when it is gone. The same for this “being.”
We relayed our common yet separate incidents with this being to several others, including some religious folks, and none could give us an answer. We researched and found that many, many other people have experienced the same sort of thing.
I cannot explain it. I no longer try to explain it. But I do know that it existed/exists; I do not know what it is, I do not know if it was conscious, I don’t know where it came from or where it went. But I know with absolute certainty that it was there.
My experience does not mean that God exists. It only means that there are things that we cannot explain. I can no longer state with certainty that those who claim to feel the presence of God are crazy; I once did. For there is no way for me to disprove it.
In the same manner, if Jane were to tell me that she loved her children or her spouse or significant other or a family member, there would be no way for me to disprove that as well. She feels it, she believes it, and it very well may be true. But I am not so arrogant as to think that I have the answer. No one does.

How sad to think that Bill Keller, Executive Editor of the
New York Times thinks that the American electorate should be ashamed of any
political leaders who say that America’s roots are Judeo-Christian. Would he
have the gall to say the same thing about countries like England, Italy,
France, Spain, or the Northern European countries? That OUR MORAL CONCEPTS of
right, and wrong, two person marriage, age of consent, and agreement that the “Ten
Commandments” are the core values of our Western legal system are to be
questioned. And of course it’s more than interesting that all of his criticism
concerning politicians’ relationships with religious leaders were directed at conservative
and republican candidates. This at the same time that a statue has been erected
in Washington, DC in honor of the Reverend Martin Luther King. Concerning his
rather inane remarks concerning political endorsements, it was to be expected
that Mr. Keller would ignore the endorsements of the many rich and powerful
people from Hollywood whose own “personal beliefs” are to say the least
questionable, and at most laughable. Would love to openly debate Mr. Keller in
public, but I am not into humiliating people in public.

While Skiles has perhaps not stated the idea completely, it’s pretty easy to explain:

We have irrefutable proof of the existence of life on earth.

Anyone with a calculator (one that can handle calculations in the trillions on up) can estimate how many planets — and earthlike planets — there are in the universe. One number proposed (I think it was Sagan and Drake) is 2 billion. We don’t have verifiable information on how likely there is to be life on those prospective 2 billion earthlike planets, but the range is somewhere between 2 billion and 1. That lower limit is implied by the “Rare Earth” hypothesis of Ward and Brownlee — which is widely considered a verrrrry conservative theory.

On the other hand, we have zero proof of the existence of supernatural beings (or being) that meet the definition of “God.”

Consequently, the likelihood of the existence of extraterrestrials is higher than the likelihood of the existence of god(s). Or, as Siles put it, “. . . that the claims of religions are true . . .”

“we have zero proof of the existence of supernatural beings (or being) that meet the definition of “God.”"

That is why it is call Faith.

“we have zero proof of the existence of supernatural beings (or being) that meet the definition of “God.”"

That is why it is call Faith.

Dood, there’s zero proof against the existence of supernatural beings (being) that meet the definition of “GOD.

“TMP”

I agree with you 100%. During my tour in Vietnam I was in a few firefights, and I never heard a wounded man call out for Spock or E.T. . Plenty called for their mothers, but most of the time it was God.

While that does not prove the existence of God, I think it’s fair to say that E.T. is pretty far down on the list.

1/2 % of the worlds population don’t believe in GOD. In the US their called Greenies and Liberals. 99 1/2% believe in GOD so is that “Mathematical proof of probability” for the existence of GOD?

“TMP”

Mathematical theoretical probability is not hard proof that something actually exists. What you have is a probability of existence.

I have faith that God exists – my two daughters are my proof that God exists. If you don’t believe that is fine, but don’t disparage others for their beliefs. It’s bad karma. :0)

I would say that is compelling and overwhelming evidence.

It certainly answer’s to expatpatriot’s nonsense.

“TMP”

How’s that judge not thing going? You remember, the one that says how you judge others is how you will be judged. That one.   How’s that going?

I basically agree. There’s no need to denigrate anyone for their faith. Questioning faith is another matter. For a long time questioning people’s religious beliefs was considered rude or off limits, but still people of faith organized to promote their views and to try and make their religious beliefs part of law that affected people who didn’t share their beliefs.
Beliefs need to be questioned and challenged, especially those that affect others. That’s how we grow.

Quite so. But the topic was “likelihood.”

As for disparaging others for their beliefs, that’s not my policy. My spouse is a Christian and for 25 years we have agreed to disagree on this issue.

However, a no-disparagement policy doesn’t mean that I have to respect the beliefs themselves. I don’t respect my wife’s beliefs, per se: instead, I respect her. And she respects me, despite my belief that my favorite rugby team is more manly, skilled, honorable, and deserving than all the other teams.

P.S.: There’s no proof of karma, either.

There is also zero evidence disproving the existence of leprechauns, snipes, white crows, precognition, or Jessica Rabbit.

Your point?

Simple politeness says don’t insult someone for their unverifiable beliefs unless those beliefs lead to antisocial behavior (which, incidentally, is the problem I have with Perry, Bachmann, et al — I’m pretty sure their beliefs would lead to all sorts of catastrophic behaviors if either one of them was put in the White House).

I happen to believe my children are smart, attractive, and slated for success, and while I have some evidence to support that, it falls far short of proof.

You, on the other hand, might observe my children and say (to yourself, I hope) “That guy’s crazy! Those are the dumbest, ugliest, most no-hoper children I have ever seen.”

If that’s your assessment, then you are free to judge me based on my (to you) obvious lack of good sense. Just be polite.

That’s my take on religion: you have every right in the world to believe, and I have every right in the world to consider you deluded for doing so.

And faith is fine, as far as it goes. For me, it doesn’t extend into the area of public policy and I will resist anyone who attempts to govern from a theocratic point of view.

“SoThere” throws out some bogus numbers below about how many people are religious versus nonreligious (more like 85/15 than the 95.5/0.5 he cites) as if belief in and of itself made things true. And you called his nonsense “compelling and overwhelming evidence.” That’s just sad.

Happily for the human race, we invented science (or a scientific bent is inherent in human beings) so we wouldn’t be at the mercy of faith to determine how the universe works.

For that we can thank ourselves and the effect of evolution that gave us such an intellectual gift, because if we followed a faith-based path to development, we’d still be living in caves. Or more likely extinct.

It’s your stupid argument not mine. It doesn’t mean squat. You cant’t actually see stupid but it’s not hard to recognize it’s effects.

Your point?

“TMP”

I love this..It’s just more good, solid proof that stupidity is still winning out at the N.Y.Times. No name calling on my part..He’s just a poor soul lost in the sea of profound liberalism.

The GOP Establishment, Fox New Commentators and the left are East-Coast Liberals. Bible believing Christians frightens the hell out of them, that’s why they call us conservatives. They both believe that Christians are nuts. Let God deal with all of them, never get upset over the dogs of the world