Silverman is an atheist , but why is his group spending money for billboards ? He never explained his motivation .

Glenn,
You should link to the atheist’s previous appearance on FOKKER NEWS so that MORONS don’t ask DUMB questions that have previously been answered.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/megyn-kelly-spars-with-prominent-atheist-over-anti-christmas-billboard/

Big Eddie said:
Silverman is an atheist , but why is his group spending money for billboards ? He never explained his motivation .

Was this comment designed to be stupid an nonsensical? Are you trolling, is that your motivation?

He said like 15 times that the reason for the sign is to give the atheists who are pretending to be religious a place to go. Are you really that retarded?

Republicans only understand one motivation: MONEY. Everything else is nonexistent.

Moron.

LeviCoult said:
Are you trolling, is that your motivation?

Do Birds have wings?

“Silverman is an atheist , but why is his group spending money for billboards ? He never explained his motivation ”

—It’s money, instead of having a real job he tries to convert people into atheism so they’ll pay membership fees. It’s ironic that he’s doing the same crap televangelists do, except that at least televangelists sell salvation and the possibility of seeing heaven. Atheists sell nothing worth buying.
http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/2011/01/tall-passenger-forced-to-stand-during.html

Big Eddie said:
Silverman is an atheist , but why is his group spending money for billboards ? He never explained his motivation .

End anti-atheism bigotry and give doubters under pretence of belief courage to come out and say religion doesn’t work for them, and that’s OK.

[quote]It’s money, instead of having a real job he tries to convert people into atheism so they’ll pay membership fees.[/quote]
You don’t have to register with American Atheists as soon as you leave religion…that’s just silly. The money doesn’t go to his pocket, it goes to charities and funds to protect the establishment clause.

I saw the interview, and O’Reilly started with a perfectly valid question: Why is this guys group going out of their way to offend people? The atheist never answered the question, but instead wanted to debate religion.

I’m not a religious person, but have no problem with people who want to go to church or believe in something on faith alone. That’s between them and whoever they pray to.

Raygun said:
End anti-atheism bigotry and give doubters under pretence of belief courage to come out and say religion doesn’t work for them, and that’s OK.

Now that’s the biggest goddam bunch of bullshit I’ve heard in a long time. If atheists didn’t go out of their way to offend and mock, people wouldn’t think they’re such douchebags. Most people have zero problem with people who’re atheists, until they start in with the insulting crap.

Mr.Papshmer said:
Now that’s the biggest goddam bunch of bullshit I’ve heard in a long time. If atheists didn’t go out of their way to offend and mock, people wouldn’t think they’re such douchebags. Most people have zero problem with people who’re atheists, until they start in with the insulting crap.

People place Religion is just on such a ridiculous pedestal that any criticism of it is automatically offensive and out of the question. Criticism of your religion (or lack thereof, by the way) is as appropriate as criticism of your political position.

To make it clear there are “atheists” and there are “anti-theists”. Not all atheists and anti-theists, most are OK with religion as something for other people but some see it as corrosive to social harmony and you should be perfectly OK with them saying that if your faith is strong enough.

“Not all atheists are anti-theists”

Meant to say that. Edit and/or delete function, please mediaite.

Imagine for a moment, instead of having a billboard that said “All Religion Is A Scam,” and funded by this atheist group, it was something funded by the Catholic League. Imagine it said, “Muslims Worship A False God, And Will Burn In Hell For It.”

I don’t imagine many of the people supporting the atheist group here, would equally support that billboard. Would you?

The point is… advertising your religious group by denigrating others, doesn’t work and is seen as offensive in this society. An atheist billboard that said something like, “Believe in yourself. Believe in others. Believe in us.” Or some such “we are the higher power,” statement would be less offensive.

But, they knew what they were doing… hoped to get a little press out of offending a few folks they don’t much care about. And I suppose on that level… the succeeded. As for convincing anyone to come to their side… doubtful.

So changes in the tides are an unexplained phenomena now?
Water goes in, water goes out…

Love it when B O ‘Reilly fricassees fringe loons like that.
He insisted that most people that go to Churches & pray or donate, really
don’t believe or like it, they don ‘t know ( neither does he) why they go.
The guy was trying to spin that calling all of Religion & 80% of America
“A Sham” was not an insult..LMAO It was kinda sad after a while.
I’m guessing it depends what the meaning of “is” is…
Bill felt sorry for him after a while..
No doubt the jerk visited his Shrink right after the Factor

Mr.Papsmear said:
I saw the interview, and O’Reilly started with a perfectly valid question: Why is this guys group going out of their way to offend people? The atheist never answered the question, but instead wanted to debate religion.

I’m not a religious person, but have no problem with people who want to go to church or believe in something on faith alone. That’s between them and whoever they pray to.

What a vacuous point. This assumes that atheists don’t get offended by religious people’s rhetoric, or, atheists are not people. Either way, your analysis is stupid. Thanks for nothing.

Fused said:
So changes in the tides are an unexplained phenomena now?Water goes in, water goes out…

O’Reilly’s point wasn’t specifically about the tides, Earthly orbit, or the moon… duh… rather, it was about WHY all those things do that. Scientifically speaking, we know what causes the tides… but we don’t know what caused the tides to be like that.

It’s a little philosophical… but that’s his opinion. It’s just another manifestation of the, “Why are we here?” question.

Gasket said:
What a vacuous point. This assumes that atheists don’t get offended by religious people’s rhetoric, or, atheists are not people. Either way, your analysis is stupid. Thanks for nothing.

I don’t think the question assumed that at all. If the billboard had said, “Atheists suck,” there would be an argument for them getting offended. However, to suggest that atheists get offended by religious people saying, “I love the Lord,” or whatever, well that’s simply over sensitive.

There is a difference in “I believe this, it’s great,” and “You believe that, and you’re wrong for it.”

WEST PADUCAH, Ky. (Dec. 3, 1997)
Christian school kids in a prayer circle, shot while praying. Three died.
A merciful God could have enlightened the young shooter before commiting the act, jammed the gun, had all bullets miss people or any number of things to prevent the deaths. But no. The gun fired, eight students where shot. Three died. All while praying to God. Its obvious but impossible to admit if one has built their sense of spirituality around the imaginary God.
The only thing left is to make excuses for God.

ImNotBlue said:
O’Reilly’s point wasn’t specifically about the tides, Earthly orbit, or the moon… duh… rather, it was about WHY all those things do that. Scientifically speaking, we know what causes the tides… but we don’t know what caused the tides to be like that.

It’s a little philosophical… but that’s his opinion. It’s just another manifestation of the, “Why are we here?” question.

IIRC, Bill’s typical idea about the religion vs atheism thing was that while religion might not explain everything, science doesnt do that either. As a result, the conflicting sides should just agree to disagree and not make a fuss.
He tried to illustrate this by using some mysterious phenomenon (the unrelenting reliability of tide behaviour) that scientists cant explain. Unfortunately for him, he chose something that has been explained and is universally agreed upon. Fortunately for him I guess, the atheist dude didn’t know either so his strategy worked to some extent.
He even says in the clip that he isnt the smartest guy in town. I think its more likely that he just made a mistake rather than actually making some deep philosophical point. His words…
“Tide goes in,tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You cant explain that.”

This could have been a 2 minutes clip. Bill O says, ” I believe in God based on faith and I can’t prove he exists. You say that religious beliefs are a scam and its a FACT,,,, so, prove your fact.”….. end of debate.

====h tt p ://www.betterwholesaler.us ======
handbag $33

AF tank woman $17

puma slipper woman $30

Nice job, Bill. You are not afraid to take on the tough issues. Keep it up.

Talking about controversial things helps…

78Thomas said:
WEST PADUCAH, Ky. (Dec. 3, 1997)
Christian school kids in a prayer circle, shot while praying. Three died.
A merciful God could have enlightened the young shooter before commiting the act, jammed the gun, had all bullets miss people or any number of things to prevent the deaths. But no. The gun fired, eight students where shot. Three died. All while praying to God. Its obvious but impossible to admit if one has built their sense of spirituality around the imaginary God.
The only thing left is to make excuses for God.

God gave us free will in order for our relationship with Him to have validity, just as you want your wife or girlfriend to want you rather than simply knocking her over the head and dragging her into your cave. However, with free will, God accepts that our choices will not always be the ones He prefers, again like your acceptance that someone you want to be friends with may not share your same interest.

God needs no excuses made for Him. Excuses are results of human inadequacies.

Gasket said:
What a vacuous point. This assumes that atheists don’t get offended by religious people’s rhetoric, or, atheists are not people. Either way, your analysis is stupid. Thanks for nothing.

Do atheists get “offended” if a football half-time show includes a song they don’t like and demand the band go silent? No, but they do act offended at a prayer before that game and demand the prayer be silenced. Now, THAT’s “stupid.”

It’s ‘stupid’ because atheists aren’t really offended by religious activity. They are on a mission to eradicate religion (especially Christianity) because they find it an obstacle in their quest to lower human dignity down to their own standards. Their excuse is claiming to be offended, then demand to offend the majority instead.

Davo said:
Do atheists get “offended” if a football half-time show includes a song they don’t like and demand the band go silent? No, but they do act offended at a prayer before that game and demand the prayer be silenced. Now, THAT’s “stupid.”

It’s ’stupid’ because atheists aren’t really offended by religious activity. They are on a mission to eradicate religion (especially Christianity) because they find it an obstacle in their quest to lower human dignity down to their own standards. Their excuse is claiming to be offended, then demand to offend the majority instead.

I can say that as a Christian I am often offended by the nature of prayers offered at government, school and secular events. I am offended by the harm such prayers cause to Christianity fare more than in the harm they cause to other institutions.

The Real Royal King said:
I can say that as a Christian I am often offended by the nature of prayers offered at government, school and secular events. I am offended by the harm such prayers cause to Christianity fare more than in the harm they cause to other institutions.

“With respect to religion.” the Constitution DOES guarantee that government cannot “prevent the free exercise thereof.” Please explain the “harm” you find.

The Real Royal King said:
I can say that as a Christian I am often offended by the nature of prayers offered at government, school and secular events. I am offended by the harm such prayers cause to Christianity fare more than in the harm they cause to other institutions.

Me too. I’m definitely a believer and a Christian but forcing religion on anyone is not right. And those that insist that their particular beliefs should become the law of the land damage everyone, including other Christians who believe differently. And we are a nation that provides freedom to worship and believe, but also to not believe.

“End anti-atheism bigotry and give doubters under pretence of belief courage to come out and say religion doesn’t work for them, and that’s OK.”

LOL. You really think there is anti-atheism bigotry? Nobody would think about atheism one way or the other if these people were not always jumping up and down and demanding attention by attacking the beliefs of others.

I can’t remember seeing a comment attacking the beliefs of atheists. The internet is littered with the nasty and intentionally disrespectful comments of atheists towards believers. What a joke. Atheists whining about religious intolerance is like the Klan whining about racism.

OK, we have a new example to go alongside the definition of a “straw man argument”:

“And those that insist that their particular beliefs should become the law…”

valkyrie101 said:
Me too. I’m definitely a believer and a Christian but forcing religion on anyone is not right. And those that insist that their particular beliefs should become the law of the land damage everyone, including other Christians who believe differently. And we are a nation that provides freedom to worship and believe, but also to not believe.

Children, children! What world are you living on? Who have you seen “insisting that their particular beliefs should become the law of the land damage everyone, including other Christians”? Sheesh!

bobmoses said:
OK, we have a new example to go alongside the definition of a “straw man argument”: “And those that insist that their particular beliefs should become the law…”

Strawman? What would you call laws prohibiting abortion, mandatory prayer in schools, laws outlawing “sodomy”, etc.? And even the argument that slavery was cool was routinely justified by southern Christian ministers pointing to St. Paul’s biblical admonishment that slaves should obey their masters.

Davo said:
Children, children! What world are you living on? Who have you seen “insisting that their particular beliefs should become the law of the land damage everyone, including other Christians”? Sheesh!

There are something live 5K Christian denominations (at least), including some aggresive hard core ones that teach that medicine is evil, or that sparing the rod spoils the child, or that prayer should be mandatory, or that abortion is a sin that should be prohibited by law, or that gays are an abomination that should be prohibited by law, or that drinking should be prohibited, or that woman should be subservient to their husbands and not be permitted to vote. As a Christian, all of those things offend me. Get it?

“there wasn’t much rancor, and the two produced a fun (if not especially enlightening, beyond showing just how strong beliefs on either side of an issue can be) segment. Video, via Fox News, below.”

If this occurred on MSNBC, they would have had two atheists debating the existence of God.

Davo said:
“With respect to religion.” the Constitution DOES guarantee that government cannot “prevent the free exercise thereof.” Please explain the “harm” you find.

When we pray in a corporate setting, we pray as God’s people. We do this because God’s saving grace, throughout history, came to God’s people. God didn’t save me, God saved us. And, faith, as a gift, did not come to me, does not come to us, in one blinding flash, definite in time and place. It is an on-going gift which requires an on-going acceptance, a daily conversion and rededication. That’s not a confession for all Christians, to be sure. But it does explain the relationship between God and God’s people as understood by those in the Catholic and High Protestant traditions.

If I go to a high school football game and some sophomore offers a prayer which by its very nature focuses on the personal “walk” of an individual with Christ, something highly characteristic of a Fundamentalist Christian tradition, particularly in the South, doesn’t that at best confuse the understanding and, even worse, disparage the understanding I just expressed?

By the same token, if I were to offer a prayer at the opening of a city council meeting which, in the highest Roman Catholic, Episcopal and Orthodox tradition, offered supplications for all who have died “that they might find peace in God’s nearer presence” or which closed with a request for the intercessions of the BVM, St. Michael and all the saints in Heaven, am I not confusing the understanding of the Fundamentalist and, by implication, saying that his or her faith is in some sense inadequate?

We are and will remain for generation upon generation a nation which is, at its core, Christian. But, we are not France or Italy or Mexico. Our Christianity is one of sectarian diversity and richness. We have to respect that, And, except for the few sects that are clearly heretical and/or cultic, we have to accept that.

When a public prayer in a secular setting is ecumenical, generic if you will, it is carefully crafted and respectfully delivered, I have no problem. In point of fact, when the prayer is not of this quality, I merely ignore it as best I can, not making it my prayer. So, I have never felt some compelling need to rail against this practice. That isn’t the same as liking it or accepting it.

Similarly, by the 5th grade, I stopped saying the Pledge. I find it a form of idolatry on the religious level, and on the political and patriotic level, my allegiance, deep as it is to my nation, is to its abiding principles and traditions, not to fabric. But, I don’t make a show of not saying the Pledge. I stand. I remain silent.

Don’t force me to be a Southern Baptist, and I won’t force you to be Roman Catholic. Don’t try to persuade me to be a Lutheran, and I won’t try to persuade you to be a Presbyterian. Don’t turn a public secular event into a revival, and I won’t turn a basketball game into a liturgy.

Is there a flaw t here?

Davo said:
Children, children! What world are you living on? Who have you seen “insisting that their particular beliefs should become the law of the land damage everyone, including other Christians”? Sheesh!

Other than Utah and Alabama?

“Strawman? What would you call laws prohibiting abortion, mandatory prayer in schools, laws outlawing “sodomy”, etc.?”

Let’s look at each of your bogey-men:

Prohibiting abortion – Sorry to tell you this, but there are plenty of folks who oppose abortion because they think it is the killing of a life, not because there is a phrase in the Bible that says so. That said, apparently you believe that if religious views inform your political beliefs, you opinion is invalid. MLK would disagree as would the nuns who are among the most vociferous war protesters. Methinks that you are not offended by their positions.

Madatory prayer is school – Did you just wake up from a 25 year nap? Do you really think that there is a large movement behind this? Calm yourself. It ain’t happening.

Laws outlawing sodomy – Wow, you are going way back on this. They were written decades ago. Who is out there pushing for new sodomy laws or the enforcement of existing ones?

Your silly attempts to blame Christians for slavery is laughable. Hate to tell you this, but everyone in the South felt that way and you were less likely to if you were a Christian minister, many of whom risked their lives as outspoken opponents of slavery. As a whole, the abolition movement started with religious leaders. But hey you are out to bash Christians, not deal with reality.

Your silly rant only proved my point.

Look, you are one of the many atheists who has a real problem with the spiritual views of others. Please note that no comments on this thread criticize the spiritual views of atheists. The only religious intolerance shown here or in the clip is from atheists.

valkyrie101 said:
There are something live 5K Christian denominations (at least), including some aggresive hard core ones that teach that medicine is evil, or that sparing the rod spoils the child, or that prayer should be mandatory, or that abortion is a sin that should be prohibited by law, or that gays are an abomination that should be prohibited by law, or that drinking should be prohibited, or that woman should be subservient to their husbands and not be permitted to vote. As a Christian, all of those things offend me. Get it?

So, in your area these are some kind of wide-spread problems you fear are nearing some kind of epedimic? Hmmmm. In my 62 years, 2 degrees, and extended travels around the nation I must confess to never finding most of that to have more than a minor fringe existence. And for that, you condemn voluntary prayer at a school ballgame? Like I said………Sheesh!

The Real Royal King said:
Don’t force me to be a Southern Baptist, and I won’t force you to be Roman Catholic. Don’t try to persuade me to be a Lutheran, and I won’t try to persuade you to be a Presbyterian. Don’t turn a public secular event into a revival, and I won’t turn a basketball game into a liturgy.

“Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.” -Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

More Jefferson quotes:

“Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

What laws in Utah or Alabama are evidence of ” insisting that their particular beliefs should become the law of the land damage everyone, including other Christians”.

Be specific. I think you are a knee jerk response based on your stereotyped views of two red states. What are you talking about?

“More Jefferson quotes”

Yawn. We get it. Other notable people were not Christians. So what? Shall I post quotes on faith from Lincoln and MLK?

Once again, you are attacking the spiritual views of others. Nobody cares and nobody is even engaging in your dorm-room theological debate. Also note that nobody is attacking your spiritual views as you attack others.

This is the pattern with atheists. They attack they views of others and then pretend that folks are attacking their views. Nobody care about your atheism, really. Go for it. Enjoy it. Nobody gives a crap and the comments here clearly illustrate that point.

Quick poll here:

Does anybody care at all if valkyrie101 is an atheist or not? Even a tiny bit?

This guy says that the goal of the billboards is to stop doubters from attending church services and contributing to the church. Why would he want to do that? What is his objection to contributing to churches, the original and fundamental form of charity?

I personally am offended (not greatly, but offended nonetheless) by anyone who proselytizes, and that includes atheists. Leave me alone to believe or not as I choose.

“When we pray in a corporate setting, we pray as God’s people. We do this because God’s saving grace, throughout history, came to God’s people. God didn’t save me, God saved us. And, faith, as a gift, did not come to me, does not come to us, in…..”

Stop forcing your spiritual views on me :)

bobmoses said:
“More Jefferson quotes”
Yawn.

Indeed.

ImNotBlue said:
Imagine for a moment, instead of having a billboard that said “All Religion Is A Scam,” and funded by this atheist group, it was something funded by the Catholic League. Imagine it said, “Muslims Worship A False God, And Will Burn In Hell For It.”

I don’t imagine many of the people supporting the atheist group here, would equally support that billboard. Would you?

The point is… advertising your religious group by denigrating others, doesn’t work and is seen as offensive in this society. An atheist billboard that said something like, “Believe in yourself. Believe in others. Believe in us.” Or some such “we are the higher power,” statement would be less offensive.

But, they knew what they were doing… hoped to get a little press out of offending a few folks they don’t much care about. And I suppose on that level… the succeeded. As for convincing anyone to come to their side… doubtful.

I understand what you’re saying and for the most part agree. It’s not nessecary to select something that is a slam agasint what someone else believes when you can make a positive affirmation of your own beliefs. They could even assert “Atheism is the reasonable alternative” or something like that. They certainly have the right to express thier ideas as much as religion has been doing for generations now.

Religious beliefs need to be chanllenged and questioned as long as believers use thier belief as a justification to affect the lives of others. It’s worse in other countries but even here we have religious groups that want to impose thier beliefs into legislation. They should expect a challange.

Ultimately, religion is built on faith in a god and a lot of traditons that have little or no hard evidnce. That doesn’t mean it’s stupid. All human’s are intellect and emotion and we can’t escape that. We go forward based on certain things we believe to be true.

I don’t agree that all religion is a scam but I do think

bobmoses said:
Quick poll here:

Does anybody care at all if valkyrie101 is an atheist or not? Even a tiny bit?

He is a socialist, so what do you expect?

CosmosDan said:
Religious beliefs need to be chanllenged and questioned as long as believers use thier belief as a justification to affect the lives of others. It’s worse in other countries but even here we have religious groups that want to impose thier beliefs into legislation. They should expect a challange.

At their core, all criminal laws (e.g., laws criminalizing murder and theft) are grounded in religious beliefs. Taken to its extreme, the argument that religious beliefs should not be incorporated into legislation would require that no conduct be considered criminal.

The Real Royal King said:
Is there a flaw t here?

Yes. A rather gaping one. There simply is no such scenario as you describe.
Are you really claiming that someone offering a prayer at a ballgame or civic function tried to “convert” you? Nonsense.

When I was a school kid, we had Christian prayers in the public school classroom. The Jewish kids (and any others who wished) were excused into the hall if they desired. No one left…………they simply sat there quietly, respecting the majority’s rights. No one in the majority ever admonished them or tried to “convert” them. All that is just a non-problem exaggerated by the atheist movement in order to force their will against the majority, and penalize Christians for being so.

I considered staying home from work just to keep this discussion going with you and Valkerie, but that would be irresponsible. Maybe by some dumb luck, this thread will still exist when I get home tonite and I can get with you then.

Davo said:
It’s ’stupid’ because atheists aren’t really offended by religious activity. They are on a mission to eradicate religion (especially Christianity) because they find it an obstacle in their quest to lower human dignity down to their own standards. Their excuse is claiming to be offended, then demand to offend the majority instead.

This is ridiculous. Religion is used to jusitify some pretty offensive acts. In this country relgious groups have tried to affect the law of the land that affects everybody, even those who don’t share their beliefs.

There are a very few athesists who would like to see religion go away because they focus on all the evil done in the name of religion, but they are an extreme minority, and it certainly isn’t anyone’s goal to lower human dignity. The idea is that clinging to myths and traition over reason and facts holds us back as a race. There’s some truth to that.

notsofast said:
He is a socialist, so what do you expect?

We are all socialists, notsofast.

CosmosDan said:
The idea is that clinging to myths and traition over reason and facts holds us back as a race. There’s some truth to that.

Now, there is a clear example of an atheist trying to force your values on everyone else, just as you accuse Christians of doing. It’s just that you have no examples to justify your accusations with. I’ll bet you’re a Liberal.

Judge Mental said:
At their core, all criminal laws (e.g., laws criminalizing murder and theft) are grounded in religious beliefs. Taken to its extreme, the argument that religious beliefs should not be incorporated into legislation would require that no conduct be considered criminal.

That’s a pretty broad point and I’m not sure it’s true. Certainly laws are affected by the beliefs of individuals including the very religious and the marginally religious, etc. Our Constitution, the basis for our laws, does not mention god.

Regardless, I’m not taking anything to the extreme. I’m only saying that as people bring their relgious beliefs into the public policy arena, they should expect to be challanged. If their arguments for policy consist mainly of their personal interpretation of god’s will, and ancient writings, rather than reason and facts, and hard data, they can expect to be marginalized.

I expect people to vote and advocate according to their conscience , which would certainly mean their religious beliefs. I also want them to understand equality, and that others have that right. When they come to the public policy arena they are one person with thier opinion, not any more an agent of god than anyone else.

LeviCoult said:
Republicans only understand one motivation: MONEY. Everything else is nonexistent. Moron.

What about Democrat christians, you idiot? What about the Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson?

See I’m an atheist but I see it all equally. You are a liberal troll who uses religion and atheism for your own political reasons.

Davo said:
Now, there is a clear example of an atheist trying to force your values on everyone else, just as you accuse Christians of doing. It’s just that you have no examples to justify your accusations with. I’ll bet you’re a Liberal.

Where is there an example of an atheist trying to force their values on anyone else?A billboard expressing an opinion.

No examples. for Christians? Are you joking? Has your head been in the sand? The Mormon church invested heavily in defeating gay marriage in California. The Moral Majority, a relgious poltical action groupo founded by Jerry Falwell , aprang up in the early 70s. The Family Research Council is another conservative Christian lobbying group, and Sojourners is a more liberal faith based political activist group.

valkyrie101 said:
We are all socialists, notsofast.

Fact: No Your type of socialist is control.. control .. control… are type just provide a simple service that works across the board that effects all 50 states like security of borders. Not a commercial economic platform for control!

Fact: typo are = our.

Just4thefax said:
Fact: No Your type of socialist is control.. control .. control… are type just provide a simple service that works across the board that effects all 50 states like security of borders. Not a commercial economic platform for control!

So you would be against, for example, libraries, publicly owned roads, a government owned military, and locally owned fire and police departments (to name only a few examples of socialist systems we use in our culture)? And since you reject socialism, will you decry social security and medicare too?

Religion, like native language or citizenship is largely determined on where you happened to be born. To argue that your religion is better or more true is like telling people born in China they should speak English.

valkyrie101 said:
So you would be against, for example, libraries, publicly owned roads, a government owned military, and locally owned fire and police departments (to name only a few examples of socialist systems we use in our culture)? And since you reject socialism, will you decry social security and medicare too?

How is something I pay for socialism? I have been paying into a fund that will supposedly act similar to a 401K in the event I live long enough to retire and that is “socialism”?

tha fact the Dems looted it years ago to fund vote buying schemes doesn’t change the facts in evidence.

I have been paying all my life.

Is it socialism when I draw money from my NON-state-mandated bank controlled savings account?

And your other examples are simply canards to assist you in avoiding the truth that govt. was NEVER meant to provide for you cradle to grave. Plain and simple.

ProgLib said:
Religion, like native language or citizenship is largely determined on where you happened to be born. To argue that your religion is better or more true is like telling people born in China they should speak English.

Nice strawman.

Perhaps you can point us to where anyone here has said they were right and say ummmm…..Baptists were wrong?

Bottom line is I saw this BS live and boiled down to it’s non-spinning bullshit essense…….

The atheist guy contends that MANY folks sit in church, and just before they give their hard earned money too, thinking it isn’t true. That folks have doubts but are afraid, unwilling to disconnect from the fellowship, etc. and that to him grants him carte blanche to make offensive statements.

He “believes” that yet states it as fact in an effort to poke at what people of faith “believe”.

If O’Gasbag was really as slick as he thinks he is he might have simply pointed out the irony and hypocricy dripping from that posture and ended the segment.

But that wasn’t in the cards when dealing with two assclowns completely enamored with the sound of their own voice figuring we never tire of same……

VoiceofReason said:
Nice strawman.

Perhaps you can point us to where anyone here has said they were right and say ummmm…..Baptists were wrong?

I’m not pointing at anything specific said here (though I’m sure I could find plenty of examples), I mean all religions in general. Whether it’s christians telling everyone else they’re going to hell or moslems condemning newspapers for cartoons of Mohammad. The beliefs are just a circumstance of where they happened to be born.

VoiceofReason said:
Nice strawman.

Perhaps you can point us to where anyone here has said they were right and say ummmm…..Baptists were wrong?

Not in this thread, but certainly some religions or branches of religions believe they are completely right and other religions are wrong.

VoiceofReason said:
How is something I pay for socialism? I have been paying into a fund that will supposedly act similar to a 401K in the event I live long enough to retire and that is “socialism”? tha fact the Dems looted it years ago to fund vote buying schemes doesn’t change the facts in evidence. I have been paying all my life. Is it socialism when I draw money from my NON-state-mandated bank controlled savings account? And your other examples are simply canards to assist you in avoiding the truth that govt. was NEVER meant to provide for you cradle to grave. Plain and simple.

No one said anything about cradle to the grave, etc. The fact is, it is much more practical and appealing to our sense of fairness for, for example, our local governments to maintain their own police department as opposed to buying our protection from independent contractors. Or for the federal government to, instead of employing millions of worker to protect our country, just hire mecenaries.

mercenaries

The King doesn’t say the Pledge of Allegiance? I am shocked! Almost as shocked as I am that the King is very religious, yet never seems to disagree with posters like Fox News: I’m a Jerk, who always knock religion.

What seems to be lacking in this discussion is anyone willing to defend the faith of Christianity. Are Christians perfect? No. Have evil things been done in the name of Christianity? Absolutely. But does that negate Christianity as a whole? No.

To the atheists in this forum, I would like to respectably ask how many of you studied the beliefs of Christianity before condemning them? C.S. Lewis, the author of the Chronicles of Narnia series, was an avowed atheist. He was led to faith in Christ through a trusted friend, the author of Lord of the Rings. He looked at the prophecies surrounding the first coming of Jesus and realized how true the Bible is. There are many more things that prove Christianity and the study is called “Apologetics.” It comes from the Greek language “apologia” meaning “to give an answer.” Before completely rejecting faith in Jesus, take a look at Lewis’ Mere Christianity, Lee Strobel’s Case for Faith or Josh McDowell’s A Ready Defense.

Buy what Pig God is it that you suppose O’Reilly worships??

tjames said:
What seems to be lacking in this discussion is anyone willing to defend the faith of Christianity. Are Christians perfect? No. Have evil things been done in the name of Christianity? Absolutely. But does that negate Christianity as a whole? No.

To the atheists in this forum, I would like to respectably ask how many of you studied the beliefs of Christianity before condemning them? C.S. Lewis, the author of the Chronicles of Narnia series, was an avowed atheist. He was led to faith in Christ through a trusted friend, the author of Lord of the Rings. He looked at the prophecies surrounding the first coming of Jesus and realized how true the Bible is. There are many more things that prove Christianity and the study is called “Apologetics.” It comes from the Greek language “apologia” meaning “to give an answer.” Before completely rejecting faith in Jesus, take a look at Lewis’ Mere Christianity, Lee Strobel’s Case for Faith or Josh McDowell’s A Ready Defense.

I’ll gladly acknowledge the positive things that have sprung from Christianity and other religions. Religions are created by men and have the same potential for good and evil that men do. IMO religion is one possible path that is perfectly valid for as long as it serves the individual’s growth and development. In some cases it doesn’t.

As a former Christian I have done a bit of study about the history of Christianity and the history of the Bible. IMO, it’s impossible to look at the facts available to us and still accept beliefs popular among Christians. Christian apologists, including Lewis do not contradict the facts. They simply offer their opinion and their own biased take on certain passages.
I have a copy of Strobel’s Case for Christ “is that what you meant?} and have read it. It simply doesn’t hold up to a real study of the available evidence. I have great family members and friends who are believers but that doesn’t change the facts. There is very little evidence to support the myths and traditions of Christianity. If you accept that there is a god, and Jesus was his son, you’re doing it on faith, and emotion, which you can do, but let’s call it what it is.
If you’re interested in some facts I suggest you read a series of short books by Bart Ehrman who is a former fundamental Christian and current biblical scholar.
Misquoting Jesus, Lost Scriptures, and Lost Christianities, all written for the layman, all give a good view of early Christianity and how we got the Bible and a realistic view of what it is and what it isn’t and the obvious influence of man on the traditions of Christianities.

Cosmos, I am currently reading Strobel’s Case for Christ, he has written several books beginning with “Case for” including “Christ” “Easter” “Christmas” and probably a few more I do not know about. I will look into Ehrman and read his books.

But have you considered the prophecies found in the Old Testament? We know they were written before the life of Jesus and there was no way Jesus Himself could have fulfilled them just by knowing what they were (as many argue). He could not make someone betray Him for 30 pieces of Scripture as prophesied by Zecheriah or many of the other things prophesied about Him.

Also, if there is no God, how do we explain creation. Even with the explanation of the Big Bang, as apologist Frank Turek (www.crossexamined.org) who believes in the Big Bang, says, someone must have banged it. Matter, Space and Time had to come from somewhere. So how do we answer that?

I am not trying to be dismissive or argumentative, I am only asking how we answer those questions without God.

You mention facts available to us. I would be interested to know them for my own consideration. I realize we will never have every answer and it ultimately does boil down to a matter of faith, but I would like to know what it is that persuaded you to walk away from the faith.

tjames said:
What seems to be lacking in this discussion is anyone willing to defend the faith of Christianity. Are Christians perfect? No. Have evil things been done in the name of Christianity? Absolutely. But does that negate Christianity as a whole? No. To the atheists in this forum, I would like to respectably ask how many of you studied the beliefs of Christianity before condemning them? C.S. Lewis, the author of the Chronicles of Narnia series, was an avowed atheist. He was led to faith in Christ through a trusted friend, the author of Lord of the Rings. He looked at the prophecies surrounding the first coming of Jesus and realized how true the Bible is. There are many more things that prove Christianity and the study is called “Apologetics.” It comes from the Greek language “apologia” meaning “to give an answer.” Before completely rejecting faith in Jesus, take a look at Lewis’ Mere Christianity, Lee Strobel’s Case for Faith or Josh McDowell’s A Ready Defense.

Spam.

tjames said:
But have you considered the prophecies found in the Old Testament? We know they were written before the life of Jesus and there was no way Jesus Himself could have fulfilled them just by knowing what they were (as many argue). He could not make someone betray Him for 30 pieces of Scripture as prophesied by Zecheriah or many of the other things prophesied about Him.

I haven’t studied the prophecies, but the NT cannot be claimed to be historically accurate so how can we say OT prophecies were fulfilled, if we don’t know which parts, if any, of the NT are correct? It’s not evidence if we have to assume things unproven are true. There’s no foundation of fact there.

tjames said:
Also, if there is no God, how do we explain creation. Even with the explanation of the Big Bang, as apologist Frank Turek (www.crossexamined.org) who believes in the Big Bang, says, someone must have banged it. Matter, Space and Time had to come from somewhere. So how do we answer that?

I am not an atheist. I’m more of an agnostic who leans toward believing that there may be a something more beyond this physical life.I think it’s perfectly acceptable to acknowledge that we don’t know. I do think that if we value truth, we have to accept scientific evidence and use it to evaluate beliefs and sort truth from tradition and myth. God must have done it, or there must be a a god, is not really an answer. It’s really just a version of, “we don’t really know”

tjames said:
I am not trying to be dismissive or argumentative, I am only asking how we answer those questions without God.

Your responses are completely respectful of beliefs different than your own and I appreciate that.

tjames said:
You mention facts available to us. I would be interested to know them for my own consideration.

Reading those three Ehrman books is a great start. As a true biblical scholar he has a good way of presenting information to the average person in a way that is understandable and accessible. I know Christian beliefs vary and I am mainly speaking about those who deny evolution, think the world is only 6000 years old, and things like that, but it extends also to an understanding of Christian history and what we now know about the Bible.

A few highlights

There were many varied views and beliefs{like our present day denominations} of what Jesus taught in those few hundred years before the First Council of Nicaea and the Nicene creed. It was a group of men that declared which beliefs were the true beliefs about Christ.
There were also many writings being circulated that were thought of as scripture and had legends attached to them about who wrote them. It was a group of men who gathered to decide which writings would be considered canon and compiled into our modern Bible. They did this in part based on the perceived history of the writings and also the doctrine within. IOW, they chose writings that agreed with the doctrine they believed , their personal notion of what the truth was.
We’ve never had the original writings. We have copies of copies of copies and translations from one language to another. We have literally thousands of copies of the scriptures now and no two of them are alike. That seems to clearly demonstrate the influence of man and I firmly believe those facts have to be considered when we honestly frame our belief system.

tjames said:
I realize we will never have every answer and it ultimately does boil down to a matter of faith, but I would like to know what it is that persuaded you to walk away from the faith.

Originally it was personal issues and some confusion, but what was more significant was a period years later when I gained renewed interest in spirituality but rather than just step back into former beliefs I decided to ask questions and pursue a personal study to answer them. I looked into other beliefs and began to ask why different beliefs formed and why good sincere people seeking God, the truth, and answers, came to such different conclusions. Certainly we accept that if God is, then he loves all mankind equally and that god would respond to any true heart sincerely seeking him.
I came to the conclusion that all religions we flawed and a result of men seeking God and they were/are an interpretation of their experiences and perceptions. That includes Christianity. I saw the similarities in general beliefs, the brotherhood of man, the connection of all life, and similar themes. As time passed and I studied more I realized all the things that were traditional beliefs rather than fact. I also realized that I didn’t need to embrace those traditional beliefs in order to value and try to live according to the principles taught by Jesus or Buddha or any other figure. I also realized that whether or not there is a something more beyond this life we don’t need to know or believe in order to live a good life in the here and now. That question will resolver itself in due time.

valkyrie101 said:
Spam.

You may not agree but it’s hardly spam.

CosmosDan said:
You may not agree but it’s hardly spam.

No, nothing to do with my agreement or disagreement. That was literally spam. Same post cut and pasted at several blog spots.

Oops, not so. I went back and checked. My apology. Not spam. :-) A pretty intelligent post, in fact.

tjames said:
What seems to be lacking in this discussion is anyone willing to defend the faith of Christianity. Are Christians perfect? No. Have evil things been done in the name of Christianity? Absolutely. But does that negate Christianity as a whole? No. To the atheists in this forum, I would like to respectably ask how many of you studied the beliefs of Christianity before condemning them? C.S. Lewis, the author of the Chronicles of Narnia series, was an avowed atheist. He was led to faith in Christ through a trusted friend, the author of Lord of the Rings. He looked at the prophecies surrounding the first coming of Jesus and realized how true the Bible is. There are many more things that prove Christianity and the study is called “Apologetics.” It comes from the Greek language “apologia” meaning “to give an answer.” Before completely rejecting faith in Jesus, take a look at Lewis’ Mere Christianity, Lee Strobel’s Case for Faith or Josh McDowell’s A Ready Defense.

I would argue that atheism is just as important as theism in the overall dynamic of faith. Jefferson said it best (again): “Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

valkyrie101 said:
I would argue that atheism is just as important as theism in the overall dynamic of faith. Jefferson said it best (again): “Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

I think that’s a great point. Atheism has long been shunned and misunderstood and it’s about time it became as mainstream and valid as any religious belief. More so than the fringe beliefs.

CosmosDan said:
I think that’s a great point. Atheism has long been shunned and misunderstood and it’s about time it became as mainstream and valid as any religious belief. More so than the fringe beliefs.

To me, atheism takes just as much faith as believing in God. Neither position is provable, though there are mountains of inconclusive circumstantial evidence. Agnostic seems to be the most logical choice because that allows you to examine the matter without attachment to existing theory.

I’m a type 4 religionist: theists, atheists, agnostics and my group. I can understand being a theist or agnostic, but do not understand the need to espouse atheistic beliefs. At least a Florida Judge named an annual day of celebration for atheists… April 1.

valkyrie101 said:
To me, atheism takes just as much faith as believing in God. Neither position is provable, though there are mountains of inconclusive circumstantial evidence. Agnostic seems to be the most logical choice because that allows you to examine the matter without attachment to existing theory.

I tend to agree with you {I might not call it faith} although I know a lot of atheists who would argue the point. They say Atheism is non belief and doesn’t require any more faith than not believing in pink unicorns or the tooth fairy.

I tend to think of it as some sort of conscious choice at least because we are surrounded by believers. I doubt there are many people who just haven’t thought about it , although many might say it never made sense to them.

dahni said:
I’m a type 4 religionist: theists, atheists, agnostics and my group. I can understand being a theist or agnostic, but do not understand the need to espouse atheistic beliefs. At least a Florida Judge named an annual day of celebration for atheists… April 1.

I think a lot of people have experienced or seen the heavy hand that religion sometimes has. There has been a lot of misunderstanding and prejudice against atheists so I understand the desire to assert oneself.

David Silverman is a Moron who’s trying to develop a fan base of people within his 15 minute window of fame ..I’d like to know who he’d be talking to or praying to if one of his children died on 9/11  -  Oh maybe he doesn’t belive in children either …
what a jerk !  

Really, you’re gonna sit there and defend O’Reilly? the guy is a quack, he can’t even make his own words 0make sense and he’s overzealously defending his beliefs and attacking others. all the while saying he’s not and that Mr. Silverman is the one attacking his.

You know, I didn’t think his honest question deserved that heated of an overreaction. Makes me wonder about what you’re trying to compensate for…   

BTW this quote reminded me of you,
“To be ignorant of one’s ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.”
-Amos Bronson Alcott