just looking at headlines here....

[Lerkfish]

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology

 
Child sexual abusers commonly turn to religion to rationalize their behavior

Religion is not reviving, it’s being forced on us

Was Christianity copied from several mythologies that predate it by 1500 years?

Would this constitute evidence that there is no God?

So I told my mom that her belief in God was irrational...

Would this constitute evidence that there is no God? (Poll)

What’s your proof that your God exists?

The Underbelly of Theocracy

It turns out that the guy who abducted the 11 year old girl 18 years ago and had their

Top 10 worst Bible passages

for you atheist heathens

People who reject the theory of evolution should be placed on a level with Holocaust deniers

So, how do you create a religion-free society?

It turns out that the guy who abducted the 11 year old girl 18 years ago and had
 

[Sal Minella]

1. So . . .

are you preparing to tell us that you've decided you'd be happier on some other message board?

Or, there's always the little "hide thread" box at the end of each title. I use it frequently, so I know it works.

[Lerkfish]

3. just observing the antagonistic nature of most threads here, including the one

that's atagonistic against atheists.

it could be a forum of mutual exploration and understanding, but in my many years here, it rarely is.

I do think there ARE some threads that are like that, mostly about Eastern religions -- those seem highly respectful and educational.

its just a shame, that's all.

[SecularMotion]

4. When religions teach mutual exploration and understanding

instead of conversion and intolerance, maybe you'll see a change.

[Sal Minella]

5. Yes. If there were fewer "One True Faith"s among religions,

there would be vastly more tolerance among non-believers.

[Lerkfish]

7. don't atheists declare they are singularly correct?

and that no religion can be?

[Sal Minella]

8. Some atheists may so declare, I suppose . . .

Personally, I've never known an atheist who declared anything of the sort, but you may well have.

We all tend to hear what we want to hear or what we expect to hear.

I hear very little about religion, pro or con, because I don't listen for it because I devoutly believe that other people's religions are their business, and no business at all of mine.

[Lerkfish]

9. "We all tend to hear what we want to hear or what we expect to hear."

there's great wisdom in that statement.

[laconicsax]

10. Close, but no.

Most religions all declare themselves to be the 'one true religion.' Since none of them can actually support their claim with outside evidence, they're all equally likely to be wrong.

[Lerkfish]

11. but you believe atheism to be the only true position, which would make all others wrong.

and you can only arrive at that position from internal logic. There is no disproof of religion from outside atheism, is there?

[laconicsax]

13. Wrong again.

Try looking at it this way. We'll take five religions, call them A,B,C,D, and E.

Adherents of A claim that A is the only true religion.
Adherents of B claim that B is the only true religion.
Adherents of C claim that C is the only true religion.
Adherents of D claim that D is the only true religion.
Adherents of E claim that E is the only true religion.

I, having no religion of my own (i.e. no horse in the race), look at this from an outside perspective. There's nothing to support any of the five claims, so they all have an equal chance of being right. The corollary of course is that they all have an equal chance of being wrong. Likewise, they can't all be right but they can all be wrong. As a result, I reject them all since there's no reason to choose one over the other and you can't choose them all.

I don't believe my position to be the only true position, making the others wrong. The others are equally likely to be wrong regardless of my position. If I were an adherent of D and believed D to be the only true religion, my religion along with the other four are still equally likely to be wrong.

Atheism isn't a 'disproof of religion,' it's a rejection of gods through lack of proof.

If you'll permit me to make an assumption about your personal beliefs, you likely don't believe in the existence of a race of elves living in colonies on medium-sized Kupier belt objects. You can't disprove their existence, but you reject their existence on the grounds that there's no proof that they exist. Similarly, you can't disprove the existence of any of the following gods:

Zeus, Marduk, Amaterasu, Enlil, Rudra, Demeter, Odin, Helios, Myesyats, Ra, Teshub, Hephestus, Hanuman, Tian, Sebek, Hermes, Umai, Njord, Al-Uzza, Hazzi, Bishamon, Lakshmi, Vesta, Min, Anubis, Fukurokuju, Mot, Quetzalcoatl, Nut, Tefnut, Nergal, Vajravarahi, Aglaia, The Lu, Hevajra, Balor, Rhiannon, Atlas, Honir, Nusku, Kurukalla, Don, An, Macha, Jurojin, Govannon, Abarta,Hepat, Hahhimas, Apsu, Hyperion, Rhea, Aizen-Myoo, Nephthys, Potrimpo, Mati Syra Zemlya, Eos, Ea, Anu, Men Shen, Ansa, Cybele, Vohu Mano, Lao Jun, Gukurokuju, Yama, Manat, Itchita, The Lah-Dre, Nodens, Ebisu, Jumala, Coeus, Dana, Heimdall, Daksha, Gungnir, Hestia, Jupiter, Mahatala, Kataragama Deviyo, Mitra, Pusan, Perkuno, Epona, Ceridwen, Wakahiru-Me, Dumuzi, Forseti, Nammu, Zao Jun, The Gulses, Ahura Mazda, Kwannon, Durga, Inaras, Arianrhod, Lir, Metis, Nga, Ouranos, Cliodhna, Attar, Yuqiang, Reshef, Taranis, Isis, Hannahanna, Teutates, Morrigan, Menulis, Pattini, Mahadevi, The Marutus, Goibhniu, Dylan, Aine, Aphrodite, Coatlicue, Kadaklan, Bragi, Hodr, Izanami, Boru Deak Parudjar, Fjorgyn, Otshirvani, Shamash, Dionysus, Aten, Heruka, Euphrosyne, Adad, Nekhbet, Saturn, Inana, Guanyin, Clotho, Astarte, Inari, Gefion, Yam, Dagda, Shiva, Etain, Wayland, Nechtan, Hera, Men, Bastet, Agni, Svantovit, Aryaman, Poseidon, Hinkon, Hupasiyas, Camulos, Manawydan, Mithra, Hecate, Anat, Tomam, Al-Lat, Surya, Kumarbi, Attis, Taiyi Tianzun, Setesuyara, Tishtrya, Boreas, Aonghus, Shu, Leto, Sif, Santas, Hubal, Anahita, Faunus, Ishtar, Skuld, Veles, Adonis, Atropos, Tapio, Badb, Wadjet, Mandah, Freyr, Nerthus, Dyaus, Asclepius, Athena, Basamum, Amida, Anshar, Sadb, Wadd, Murukan, Kied Kie Jubmel, Uu,Cerdandi, Ereshkigal, Dazhbog, Lelwani, Sin, Ullikummi, Balder, Tsukiyomi, Artemis, Thoth, Tezcatlipoca, Dian Cecht, Utu, Baal, Iskur, Wen Chang, Ame-No-Uzume, Xolotl, The Daevas, Hades, Circe, Telepinu, Thor, Ninlil, Ganesha, Donn, Hachiman, Frigg, Vulcan, Saule, Ec, Nanna, Indra, Nu Gua, Tlaloc, Ninurta, Vidar, Patollo, Madder-Akka, Bhaga, Nemglan, Korrawi, Mnemosyne, Cernunnos, Es, Caer, Grid, Brigid, Perunu, Seth, Cronos, Juno, Lachesis, Tuoni, Tammuz, Khosadam, Prometheus, Persephone, Svarazic, Tyr, Hathor, Cupid, Vishnu, Maat, Moloch, Geb, Ukko, Apollo, Boann, Aglibol, Suku-Na-Bikona, Ruda, Varuna, Ulgan, Dhatr, Brahma, Eros, Anbay, Ninhursaga, Semara, Kishimo-Jin, Ganga, Llyr, Kurunta, Ida-Ten, Benten, Ogma, Freyja, Oceanos, Osiris, Susano-Wo, Horus, Vayu, Kegutsuchi, Vayu, Belenus, Loki, Ki, Nudd, Pan, Aditi, Karttikeya, Thalia, Taru, Minerva, Nasr, Idun, Neptune, Natha, Shou Lao, Gadd, Uke-Mochi, Mars, Leib-Olmai, Lugh, Mac Cecht, Izanagi, The Dagda, Marishi-Ten, Jurojin, Apep, Lei Gong, Khyung-gai, Huitzlopochtli, Eileithya, Taranis,Khnum, Amaethon, Geb, Hotei, Manannan Mac Lir, Prithivi, Shen Nong, Ebisu, El, Bellona, gShen-lha-od-dkar, Batara Kala, Psyche, Venus, Ningal, Urd, Ptah, Zarpanitu, Kuvera, Amon, Num, Searbhan, Shoten, Luonnotar, Neith, Daikoku, Kubaba, Indra, Aegir, Ariniddu, Mimir, Ares, Soma, Shaushka, Lugus, and Janus.

I assume however that, like me, you don't believe that any of them exist--you are an atheist about all of these gods (and more).

[Lerkfish]

14. so you don't believe atheism is correct?

[laconicsax]

16. What part of what I wrote says that?

[Lerkfish]

17. nothing, of course, since you chose to stay out of the horse race.

but your example completely ignores my previous point, by excluding it as a choice.

I made the point that atheists believe atheism is singularly correct, and all other choices incorrect (irrational is a favorite term).

Your example only discussed religions against each other and you arbitrarily moved atheism out of the equation.

I was trying to put atheism back into the equation by challenging you to.
If you believe atheism is correct, and everything else incorrect, then you need to include it as a lettered choice.

by not including it, you're pretending to refute my assertion but in reality you are simply taking a most manipulative way out by refusing to address it while pretending to be above the question entirely.

in other words, you can't pretend to be apart from the issue when you are indeed part of the issue. the issue being, the position that your position is singularly correct.

[laconicsax]

19. Atheism isn't a religion.

Atheism is a position concerning the existence of gods. It has no belief structure, no rites, no sacraments. It isn't a religion. By treating it as a religion, you are setting yourself up for false conclusions.

Your claim that "atheists believe atheism is singularly correct, and all other choices incorrect" is false. Your claim that I "believe atheism to be the only true position, which would make all others wrong" is also false.

I never wrote that I believe that atheism is "singularly correct" nor did I say that I believe that "everything else [is] incorrect." In fact, I wrote something to the contrary earlier and I did so again in this response.

I don't believe that atheism is "singularly correct/the only true position" nor do I believe that "everything else [is] incorrect." I believe that not believing in gods for which there is no evidence is a correct position to take, but not the only one. I believe that positions that assert authority over that which has no evidence are equally likely to be wrong. You'll notice (I hope) that this is a probability statement and carries the implication that they're also equally likely to be correct. You'll also notice (I hope) that atheism doesn't assert authority over that which has no evidence but instead concerns itself with the evidence.

In my example of religions A-E, when an adherent of A says, "A is the one true religion," adherents of B, C, D, and E say, "You're wrong because my religion is the one true religion." An atheist says "I don't believe you because you don't have any evidence to support your position." That's why atheism doesn't have a horse in the race. It's a spectator sitting in the stands refusing to bet on any of the horses because none of them have the odds in their favor.

You should try taking a step back and listening to what people have to say rather than telling them what they believe.

[Lerkfish]

22. I never called it a religion. I called it a position

[laconicsax]

27. That doesn't suddenly make you right.

You're still saying 'atheists believe X' when I've shown you why that's false.

[Nihil]

37. After reading through this thread a few times ...

... the hitch seems to be the word "believe".

If I may quote your earlier post:

Try looking at it this way. We'll take five religions, call them A,B,C,D
and E.

Adherents of A claim that A is the only true religion.
Adherents of B claim that B is the only true religion.
Adherents of C claim that C is the only true religion.
Adherents of D claim that D is the only true religion.
Adherents of E claim that E is the only true religion.

I, having no religion of my own (i.e. no horse in the race), look at this
from an outside perspective. There's nothing to support any of the five
claims, so they all have an equal chance of being right. The corollary
of course is that they all have an equal chance of being wrong. Likewise,
they can't all be right but they can all be wrong. As a result, I reject
them all since there's no reason to choose one over the other and you can't
choose them all.

To me, the above can be re-written as:

Adherents of position A claim that A is the only true religion.
Adherents of position B claim that B is the only true religion.
Adherents of position C claim that C is the only true religion.
Adherents of position D claim that D is the only true religion.
Adherents of position E claim that E is the only true religion.
Adherents of position F claim that A, B, C, D & E are all equally likely
to be wrong, equally unsupported by evidence and equally rejected.

... where "position" is explicitly *not* equal to "religion"

> I don't believe my position to be the only true position, making the
> others wrong.

By adopting a position that is exclusive of A-E (because you can't hold F
at the same time as any of A-E) you are *behaving* in the same way (albeit
for completely different reasons) as the adherents of A-E in this one
respect. You aren't doing it from "belief" but the *behaviour* is the same.


In other words, although you have no religion of your own, you are *not*
looking at this "from an outside perspective" as your position is an
exclusive "other" to positions A-E and, by existing, you are in the race.

JMO but it seemed that you were arguing past each other.

[darkstar3]

38. See post #20. n/t

[Nihil]

39. Why? Post #20 is useless as an answer (to my post at least).

It is not relevent to this sub-thread so why bother with the somewhat
pretentious "See post #xyz. n/t" as if it answers the problems of the
universe in one fell swoop?

It doesn't relate to my post.

It doesn't even answer the post that it is replying to (just goes off
on a tangent of familiar cliches).

[darkstar3]

40. The familiar cliches

are only there to help make the point of the few sentences that come after. And those sentences DO answer your post, and the post they were originally in reply to. You're BOTH setting up a false dichotomy. The world is not divided by the nice lines you want to draw.

In my post #20, I said 'On the question of God, my answer is "why ask?"'. This is the crux of my argument. You keep setting up two (or five) opposed positions and saying I must take one, but you're ignoring the one in the middle, which is complete apathy to the entire argument. In the case of religion, since that is in fact what we're discussing, that position is rejecting the question of God out of hand and not giving a flying shit about the answer.

But since you seem so keen on playing logic games that ignore religion to try and make your religious point, here's an example from real life. Recently, two of my friends were having a discussion about which was the superior breakfast food.

Friend 1: Eggs and bacon is clearly the superior breakfast choice. Aside from the protein and carbs, you also have so much variety in how you can cook it.
Freind 2: No, no, cereal is the superior food because you still get the protein and carbs, but you don't have to cook it so you can get more sleep.
......argument snip. They actually did go back and forth for a few minutes....
Me: I don't eat breakfast, so why ask me? Eat whatever you want, I don't give a shit...

See how that works? In order to be part of the debate over which type of breakfast I should eat, I have to actually eat breakfast first. Similarly, in order to be part of the debate over which faith|belief|religion|spirituality is correct, I have to actually have faith first.

As for the word diarrhea you spewed in #39, have some verbal Pepto Bismol:
1. I never claimed that my post DID solve all the problems of the universe in one fell swoop, so don't put words in my mouth.
2. You came in at the end of a debate between two people to offer a weak-ass parallel and chime in with your final opinion on the subject when clearly all the questions raised in that discussion had been answered to the satisfaction of the participants. So which one of us pretentious?
3. As I've said to others before, claiming simple irrelevance because you don't like or don't understand what you have read is not a way to somehow win an argument by default.
4. Finally, condescension is never a way to get your point across. At best it makes you look like an ass, and at worst it closes the ears of everyone you're trying to talk to. So the next time you feel like engaging in honest discussion, drop the "more-logical-than-thou" tone.

[Nihil]

41. "Mirror, mirror ..."

Last point first
> So the next time you feel like engaging in honest discussion, drop the
> "more-logical-than-thou" tone.

After you sunshine, after you.
With regard to the rest of your "partings shots", I suggest you re-read what
I said as it appears that either you misread or misunderstood for it to trigger
that part of your response.

As for the rest ...

> You keep setting up two (or five) opposed positions ...

Errr no, that would be laconicsax in reply 13 (the person who I was actually
replying to) that set up the five opposed positions and who then expounded
his (/her?) own position that is exclusive of the preceding five.

> and saying I must take one, but you're ignoring the one in the middle,

No, I was pointing out that laconicsax was claiming not to be the one in
the middle, and that this claim (holding a position that was not one of the
original 5) *should* be seen as in the list (middle or otherwise) - not because
it is any form of religion (which it is not) but because it was a position,
an opinion, a philosophical viewpoint (or any other synonym you care to use).


> Similarly, in order to be part of the debate over which faith|belief|
> religion|spirituality is correct, I have to actually have faith first.

That would only be true if atheism was a faith/belief/religion/spirituality.

It isn't. It is a non-religious philosophy/viewpoint/position/attitude.

You do not need to have "faith" in any way to hold a view/opinion/position,
just a conscious "self" (which can be assumed from the fact that you are
apparently participating in conversations).

Your claim in .20 that "We are the default position" is actually a stronger
statement of position #6 that I mentioned previously than the words I used:
> "Adherents of position F claim that A, B, C, D & E are all equally likely
> to be wrong, equally unsupported by evidence and equally rejected"

I didn't suggest that anyone was claiming to be the "default position" but,
as it happens, I agree with you: everyone starts out as an atheist so being
"the default position" doesn't invalidate anything I said.


> The world is not divided by the nice lines you want to draw.

That is precisely the point I was making (albeit with a different "you").

We agree? :shrug:

[darkstar3]

42. Here's another cliche for you

Turnabout is fair play.

Anyway, it appears that we agree on our actual positions in the debate on faith, but we differ in our views on semantics, which is unfortunately what this subthread has become about.

Semantics are such a pain in the ass...

I think we may just have to agree to disagree, as much as I hate that phrase, since I'm of the opinion that I "have no dog in this hunt" and you're of the opinion that even without a dog I'm still hunting. We could go in circles forever, and I don't think either of us will really make a point with the other.

Maybe that's why Laconic and Lerk left the discussion when they did. Whoever it was that said "there is wisdom in silence" really knew his stuff.

[Nihil]

44. Good point ...

> Whoever it was that said "there is wisdom in silence" really knew his stuff.

... and one I shall try to bear in mind more often!

Have a good weekend! :toast:

[darkstar3]

20. *sigh*...There's no "there" there...

We are the "off" to your lightswitch, the "Park" to your transmission, the black coffee to your cappuccino. We are the default position, the null set, the zero in mathematics, the neutral...

You believe that one of us has to be right. I don't. On the question of God, my answer is "why ask?" So in my mind, there's no correct or incorrect answer.

[Lerkfish]

23. I did not say one of us had to be right.

I said that atheist believe they are correct and religions are irrational and wrong.
In most cases, I think that's an apt. observation.

[darkstar3]

26. There's that word again...

First, atheists believe nothing. That's the nature of the word and the concept.

Second, as religious adherents are SO fond of saying, we're not one big homogeneous group. This is especially true since there are no tenets of faith to adhere to.

You're trying to be gentle about it, but you're still painting with a broad brush. The color may be pleasing, but the paint is still going on the wrong fenceposts.

[Lerkfish]

6. so one intolerance permits another

so, in other words, there will never be mutual exploration and understanding.

and you will be equally as guilty of that.

and how will you know when you have entered a room of religious people are keenly interested in mutual exploration and understanding, if you refuse to find out?

Since you will automatically decide they are not, and nothing they say will sway you differently, at what point will you drop your own intolerance? What will be signal?

[laconicsax]

15. My, how you cherry pick.

Here are some threads from page one that you left out. I use page one because some of your examples are at the bottom of the page, having not been touched in weeks.

The Mormon Worker - Does this mean a leftist movement within the LDS Church?
Philosophy student vs. Mormon...
God, a career perspective
Karen Armstrong and Richard Dawkins square off for the WSJ in "Man vs. God"
Don't Get Angry. * * * * * * Get .......
The Future That Brought Her Here.
I'm not saying the Superman of comic books is real.
Choose your afterlife
How would you react if you met someone who thought s/he is G-d? (Poll)
Church altar smites devout Catholic
Are human beings hardwired to believe that a whole number that is odd cannot also be even?
Trying to understand Sin and Forgiveness
Corporal Punishment for Children (Poll)
My review of "The Dude Abides--The Gospel According to the Coen Brothers"
REVOKE Revenue Ruling 70-549
"Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America."
"Students must learn about other religions: judge" - Quebec, Canada.
Brian P. Donovan of Braintree, MA arrested for trying to disrupt Vietnamese Budhist Festival.
UUA launches 'Standing on the Side of Love' campaign
... Chuangtse and Hueitse walked Hao bridge. Chuangtse said
Wisdom in a Cleric’s Garb; Why Not a Lab Coat Too?
Any Zen practitioners here? I'm reading Sekida's translation of and commentaries
And So It Began......
The Tao Dude Ching
Re-thinking Nero's fire
What justification can someone have for being a conscientious objector in Switzerland?
Something to think about (probably already have)
Woman who thought she was God accused of slavery
I thought that hate speech condoning the death
Say a prayer before sex
50 davening rabbis circle Israel in a plane to ward off swine flu
Is this sign offensive (Poll)
"World’s first Muslim superheroes, the 99, out to conquer the West"
"Female Muslim journalist faces trial for wearing pants"
Wifely submission..........?????
"Mali women's rights bill blocked"
"Bishop Continues Fight Against Same-Sex Marriages in D.C.", calls GLBT tactics "satanic"
All Dogs Don't Go to Heaven: Post-Rapture Pet Care
A Counter-Revolution in Jewish-Catholic Ties
"Dutch prosecutors to charge Arab group with hate speech for Holocaust cartoon"
Explain how evangelicals can claim an 'inerrant' Bible and still use one that has "dynamic
The Makings of a Theocracy in America? (The Family)
We must believe: The philosophy of a video game...
World’s most popular Bible to be revised
My son was the last student to be interviewed by his Head Start teacher,
Has anybody read Crossan's Historical Jesus: Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant?
Is there a Biblical source for the feminine name "Carina" or "Karina"?
Which is more offensive: (Poll)
Pat Robertson should feel lucking knowing that there likely is no hell...
Question for DU Atheists...
I am curious (question for atheists)
Religion Outlawed
An entire Ohio school district has "belief in god" as part of it's MISSION STATEMENT.
Legal case against God dismissed

Did you leave these out because they didn't fit your premise?

[Lerkfish]

18. read post number three.

it was an incomplete list because I was objecting to a condition in general. I did not include some threads that you did, for several reasons, one: I had not opened them so their headlines might be contraindicative of their content, and two because I didn't want to be exhaustive in order to make a point.

If you'll note, I did include a thread that was antagonistic to atheists, which I also think is counterproductive to discussion.

I took the first block of threads that were at the top of the list when I made my post (all on page one) but not completely inclusive of those on page one.

for instance, I was happy to see a couple of threads respectful and enlightening of eastern religions, but since I don't consider those to be part of the issue or point I was making, I did not include them.

addtionally, some of them:

Explain how evangelicals can claim an 'inerrant' Bible and still use one that has "dynamic
The Makings of a Theocracy in America? (The Family)
We must believe: The philosophy of a video game...
World’s most popular Bible to be revised
My son was the last student to be interviewed by his Head Start teacher,
Has anybody read Crossan's Historical Jesus: Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant?
Is there a Biblical source for the feminine name "Carina" or "Karina"?
Which is more offensive: (Poll)
Pat Robertson should feel lucking knowing that there likely is no hell...
Question for DU Atheists...
I am curious (question for atheists)
Religion Outlawed
An entire Ohio school district has "belief in god" as part of it's MISSION STATEMENT.
Legal case against God dismissed

I did not list because I think they were bringing up valid issues for discussion, and weren't being posted merely to poke in the eye the "other side", no matter what that side is.

I hope this helps.

[laconicsax]

21. You mean the response I was replying to?

Your original post has 14 threads that you consider antagonistic. You have now listed 13 threads that you don't consider antagonistic and make mention of others. You also admit that you didn't really look at all the other threads.

The count so far is 14 antagonistic and more than 13 non antagonistic.

You have just provided evidence that refutes your own assertion in that "most of the threads here" have an "antagonistic nature."

What's more, you are necessarily lying when you say "I took the first block of threads that were at the top of the list when I made my post" since a block of them are at or near the bottom of the page and have been for days.

[Lerkfish]

24. I do not lie.

and resent the accusation.

[laconicsax]

25. Then perhaps you can explain the apparent contradiction between your words and established facts.

Your words:
"I took the first block of threads that were at the top of the list when I made my post (all on page one) but not completely inclusive of those on page one."

Established fact: These threads that you listed are at the bottom of the page and have been there for days.

-"for you atheist heathens"
-"People who reject the theory of evolution should be placed on a level with Holocaust deniers"
-"So, how do you create a religion-free society?" (This is now on page two.)
-"It turns out that the guy who abducted the 11 year old girl 18 years ago and had" (This is now on page two.)

In fact, they appear in that order, with a few 'non-antagonistic' threads in between.

Please explain how you took these threads from "the first block...at the top of the list" when they haven't been at the top of the list for at least a week.

[darkstar3]

28. Beuhler?...n/t

:evilgrin:

[laconicsax]

29. +1

(Bueller BTW)

[darkstar3]

31. I KNEW I should have Googled it first...

:hi:

[heidler1]

35. Laconicsax, you do a beautiful job of clearly pointing out inconsistencies in various xian notions.

I find the most troubling prospect of christian control of our schools and government is their unwillingness to look at issues

honestly. What ever gets in their way of their time honored dogma or what they said two minutes ago is tossed under the bus.

Your method of nailing them with truth does wear them down and out eventually.

[laconicsax]

45. Thanks!

[laconicsax]

46. Still waiting...

It's been a week. Should I just assume your silence to be a tacit acknowledgment of your aforementioned dishonesty?

[RLBaty]

30. Indeed, check out that "REVOKE..." thread!

Alas, perhaps we are just going to have to wait until the IRC 107 suit is filed before the folks here engage in a substantive discussion of the relative merits of the law and its future utility, if it survives a judicial test of its constitutionality.

Yesterday I was again advised that progress is continuing to be made towards the filing of the suit.

May it come sooner rather than later, and may those who keeping running up the numbers in viewing the "REVOKE..." thread begin to involve themselves in this important public debate.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[laconicsax]

32. I'd love to contribute to that thread, but I have nothing useful to say.

[RLBaty]

33. Re: I'd love to...

Well, the thought is nice!

You seem to be a frequent poster; maybe something will come to you.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[Why Syzygy]

34. I hid it.

If we had a different crew of mods, chances are it would be locked. DU doesn't tolerate spamming.

[laconicsax]

36. There's no spamming in that thread.

The thread was started by christa, and RLBaty's responses are all on topic.

[moggie]

2. Alert on posts, don't just whine about headers n/t

[DeSwiss]

12. Here, here.

[TZ]

43. Ummm there are whole protected groups to discuss religion

without being flamed. This forum is an open forum. Believers and non-believers alike. Do I detect a thread of "SHUT UP ATHEISTS" in your post? That seems to be a returning theme here.