.as I do those who scream "legalism". There will always be people who insist they have. A right to do as they please VOID of accountability. Without structural order, hedonistic chaos would rule the day

I don't consider Religion as an oppressive force in my life

I'll feel oppressed by it.  
Until then I simply won't feel guilty for not buying into irrational fear and self loathing

I don’t. It is just a comedy show for me. Better than Comedy Central in many cases.

Legalism? six gay people could marry for all I care.

We must choose to believe, or not.  

With out Religion CC would be left standing there holding their dick's as entertainment.

Elementary ,Middle , Junior High school , my teachers tried to oppress me with their beliefs.  
   
 If I was bored in religion class ,usually when we weren't discussing Crusade battles with  
  sharpened swords , I would day dream about girls and my gentle sword saving her .
 
  I was the kid in school who would argue with my teachers about what God would do , to his/her  
version of sinners  .  
Then as today , the guys that feel oppressed by someone preaching their religious belief , are  often   guys wearing  a dress .  

We are oppressed by religion every time someone's delusions are used as an excuse for us all to live in a nation that would otherwise be better without religion.

Every time we have politicians, often sitting on committees related to science, who deny science, and instead refer to the bible, a book written by stone age barbarians, to explain why climate change is a "hoax".

Every time a politician denies funding to a scientist who's working within the fields of evolution. If said politician believes morality comes from a cloud being, instead of through an evolutionary process, then those scientists won't get funding to research how morality evolved. And we have a poorer understanding of psychology as a result.

Every time our nation has to suffer through foreign entanglements due to us having a foreign policy that will protect Israel at all costs, when we should treat Israel as just any other ally.

Every time delusional asshats use their delusions to justify flying planes into buildings, or blowing up women's clinics.

Every time a preacher stands before an audience and tells them absurd things about the origins of our existence, our planet, or the universe. And people believe this nonsense, instead of understanding the science that properly explains it.

Every time my tax dollars are used for the police to be used to direct traffic coming out of churches on Sunday.  

This would be a far better world if we didn't have religion in it. We wouldn't debate whether gay marriage was a good idea or a bad idea. We would simply accept that it's common sense to extend equal rights to everyone.

weak willy  "We are oppressed by religion every time someone's delusions are used as an excuse for us all to live in a nation that would otherwise be better without religion."  
 
  1.You are oppressed because you are a weakling,  unable to stand up for your own convictions .
   

quad responded quite well so I won't repeat except to add that on balance, religion has had many positive effects on humanity. So much so that the net effect is far more positive than negative. Additionally, many of the most severe negative effects have been an aberration of true religion. Certainly not all but many of the worst examples were people seeking political power and misused some tenets to their own gain. It wasn't the religion but the evil person(s) who abused it.

To refresh your memory it twas the day ya were shinning my shoes .  

But any business that brings hoards of spectators spending money seems to get traffic police help.

...even people who are behind bars.

"on balance, religion has had many positive effects on humanity. So much so that the net effect is far more positive than negative."

I couldn't disagree more. It's also easy for you to say in this day and age. Scientific discovery has allowed us all to live incredibly comfortable lives. Science has saved billions of lives, just in the field of sanitation alone.

What has religion done? Consider this: In Europe the Bubonic plague took hold only because people believed that cats were possessed by the devil. Europeans killed off cats, and as a result the rat population in European cities skyrocketed. This allowed for the spread of fleas that lived on the rats, which were the carriers for the Bubonic plague that wiped out an estimated 50% of all Europe.

Consider this: The middle east used to be the center of scientific discovery. The Arabs invented the number 0, we still use Arabic numerals. They invented double-entry book keeping. Most of the constellations have Arabic names. Then came Islamic nutbags who said that math is the devil's work, and the place hasn't advanced one iota ever since.

Consider this: right now in Africa millions are suffering from AIDS and HIV. It is common that children see their parents die before they hit puberty, and they're left to fend for themselves. The Catholic church's response is to tell Africans that using a condom is a sin.

And what do you get for all this? A church-run soup kitchen? Something that could easily be accomplished by secular means?

You say that religion isn't all that bad, it's just bad people who are religious. Would you say that about a Muslim who's strapped on a vest?

Without religion, good people would be good, bad people would be bad. But it takes religion to make a good person do bad things.

Look at any Abrahamic holy book, and tell me you don't see evil in it. Do you really think it's a good idea to stone children to death for being unruly? Do you really think it's a good idea to do what Jesus commanded, and cut out your own eyes instead of looking at a pretty lady? Be honest: not even Osama bin Laden was THAT barbaric and insane.

But maybe you're thinking, "well, it all depends on how you interpret the book". Well, that's the problem, isn't it? If people are going to cherry pick from the bible what they find acceptable, and what they don't, then how do you determine what to cherry pick and what you don't? You can't say that some guy isn't being a "real" Christian when he kills his neighbor for the crime of working on the Sabbath.

Ultimately, we have very little to learn from, as Thomas Jefferson put it, our "semi-barbarous ancestry". And the more we cling to the absurd and primitive beliefs of these stone-age barbarians, the worst we all we be.

It's time to move on. It's time to evolve. It's time to live in a society that is free from religion.

(Sorry, this got long.  I got carried away)

For whatever reason, you find it necessary to be walking in a "bad part of town" in some major city late at night.  There are no police around, no stores open or other pedestrians anywhere in sight.

Suddenly, you hear a rather loud group of young people, and see that they just turned a corner ahead of you, and are now walking directly toward you.  Unsurprisingly, your "fear factor" goes up.  How would you feel if you knew these loud rowdy youths had just been to a club, or a rave, a bar, an after-hours party, etc?  OTOH, how would you feel knowing that they had just been to a late-night bible study group?

Give me a break.  You can choose to believe in a Higher Power or not.  To say that you'd rather live in a nation without religion is ridiculous.  One of the most important steps forward in the ascent of Man was the move away from pagan rituals, with "gods" who were nothing more than imaginary, very powerful beings, susceptible to all the same personality flaws as we mere mortals (and who were indifferent, or even hostilte toward their own worshippers), and towards an all-knowing all-powerful omipotent being who knew your name and and cared about you as an individual.

Whether you believe in such a Supreme Being or not is irrelevant; but not to recognize the importance of such a development and the long-term positive effect of stressing the importance of the individual, as opposed to the collective, is to purposefully turn a blind eye towards a major component of world history.

Politicians who "ignore science" and "instead refer to the Bible":  Are we really going to dredge up this silly argument again?  "Science" has been wrong many, many times in the last few thousand years.  New scientific investigation constantly finds flaws in previous "settled science" (as just one example off the top of my head, the reader is referred to the Michelson-Morley experiments, and how the results led to Albert Einstein's revolutionary work).

I fail to see where belief in the Bible has any direct bearing on belief/lack of belief in "climate change" (btw, didja ever notice how the term used to be "global warming" and now the term is "climate change"?  Funny how that goes…).

fwiw, global warming/climate change *is* a hoax--and it ain't got nuthin' to do with the Bible.  Take a look at those poor slob scientists stuck in Antarctica right now.  They went out looking for proof of their theory that the polar icecaps are receding.  Not only are they not receding, they've expanded so much that this team of scientists and their hangers-on are stuck there, and so far at least have been unable to be rescued.  (Hmm, maybe that's why the term "climate change" is in vogue now--this way, if it gets hotter *or* colder, it's always attributable to "climate change")

Now forget about that little factoid.  Hasn't anyone ever been educated at all?  There was a time in the Middle Ages that the best wines in the world were held to be those of British origin.  (What's that from the back of the room?  British?  Yes, British)  As we all know, the most successful vineyards tend to be those in relatively warm areas--which is why southern California, France, Italy, etc, are currently the best wine-producers.  So what does this all mean?  Simply that at some point four- or five-hundred years ago, the Earth was much warmer than it is now.  There were no "fossil fuels" or "greenhouse gas emissions" or "ozone layer depletions" going on then.  Nope.  The climate and weather patterns of the planet are cyclical.  The single biggest controlling factor is one over which we have NO control--to wit, solar activity.  Global warming, climate change, anthropegenic global warming…it's all a bunch of BS (See?  No Bible).

Politicians denying funding to scientists who are "..working within the fields of evolution"?  Huh?  Show me where that's ever happened.  And btw, why is the funding of scientific research a function of government to begin with?  If this research is so important, why is there no private sector interest in funding this oh-so-important research.  Knowledge often equals power.  Seems to me that if research is important, then it'll happen, one way or another.  Take a look at all the bounties being offered by private entities to encourage space exploration.

(Part Two immediately after this one, if you haven't fallen asleep by now)

(Read Willy's post, and then Part 1 of my post before reading this one)

Israel is an important ally of the US, sure.  But don't tell me that every foreign entanglement that we are in should be billed to Israel's account.  To this day, I still have no idea why we got involved in the Bosnia mess in the 90s (nothing to do with Israel, to be sure).  The Afghanistan component of the (yuck) "War on Terror" was necessary after 9/11 (although I would have prosecuted it very differently than GWB did).  The Iraq component may or may not have been necessary--but I don't think it had much to do with Israel one way or another.  For damn sure, I have no idea what the compelling interest was in deposing Khadafy, or how that helped anybody--the people of Libya, the US, Israel..?  All it got us was the horrors of Benghazi.  Same goes for this constant meddling in Syria.  There are no "good guys" there on either side.  As long as they're fighting one another, we should just leave them to it.  And then there are the morons who want us to get involved in the war between Sudan and South Sudan.  What's the "Israeli side" in that conflict?

The truth is simpler:  Americans have historically supported Israel on moral grounds--a belief that these are a People who have suffered enough, and deserve someplace in this world that they can call home, and not be looked upon as convenient scapegoats by The Powers That Be in whatever country it is in which they have found some brief refuge.

Delusional asshats:  There are plenty of those around whose "religion" is not Christianity or Islam.  Communism (Stalin, Mao, Castro, Che, Hoenecker, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, Kim Sung Un, etc), National Socialism (Hitler, naturally, but also keep an eye on Neo-Nazi movements like Greece's Golden Dawn party), Fascism (Mussolini, Franco).  MANY more people were killed by the "-isms" of the 20th century than were killed by all the "religious wars" of the preceding three millennia.

Delusion asshat is as delusion asshat does, NOT as delusional asset believes.  I meet delusional asshats all the time.  I don't care what they believe, as long as they don't engage in acts of violence against me or my neighbors.

"Every time a preacher stands before an audience":  Wow, you must have watched "Inherit the Wind" a thousand times when you were a kid.  I know that there are some strains of Christianity (and probably other faiths also) that claim that whatever is in the "Creation story" of the Bible (or whatever the holy book of that faith is) is to be treated literally--but that's a very small number.  Most of the clergy that I have ever had extended discussions with try to be at least somewhat dismissive of the Genesis story (at least in the sense of it being literal truth).  OTOH, if you read the Genesis account in a less-critical manner, you'll find that it almost supports the modern "scientific" theory:  There is a "Big Bang" (Let there be light), then a cooling period as matter and energy separate (Let there be a firmament), etc, moving through the formation of the stars and planets, the creation of bodies of water and dry land, then plants and animals, and finally Man.

I don't know, I don't find it hard to square my religious beliefs with my belief that the universe is billions of years old.  After all, as Spencer Tracy said in that movie, it didn't have to be a 24-hour day now, did it?  There wasn't even a Sun by which to measure days until Day 3.

Tax dollars used to direct traffic coming out of churches?  C'mon, that's just silly.  Is it ok to use cops to direct traffic coming out of schools?  Sports stadiums?  What if somebody wanted to hold a political rally?  Wait, don't tell me, let me guess:  It would be perfectly ok to have cops directing traffic to and from an Occupy Wall Street rally, but manifestly wrong to provide the same level of safety and security for a Tea Party rally.  Am I right?  After all, those Tea Party people are all just horrible Bible-thumpers!  Why, they don't deserve the same protection as all of us "correct-thinking" people do!  (Give me a break…my tax dollars are wasted on all kinds of things.  Providing a basic level of safety and security in areas at times when those areas are known in advance will be experiencing heavy traffic is one of the few non-wasteful things that I have a right to expect my local government to provide for me)

Gay marriage:  I've got a better question.  Why in the world is the government in the marriage business to begin with?  Let everything be a "civil union" (with no government imprimatur other than that), allow clergy to perform corresponding religious ceremonies (and of course, the right to refuse to perform such ceremonies for whatever reason--homosexual union, marriage "out of the faith", whatever), and the whole issue becomes moot.  We're all getting hung up on the term "marriage", precisely because of the somewhat religious portentousness of that word.  So take the word out of the equation.  End of argument.

I don't know, Willy.  I'd hate to live in your world.  It really feels to me like you have a very large chip on your shoulder, and a tremendous amount of antipathy towards those who don't share your beliefs/opinions/moral outlook/whatever.

I have friends and family whom I hold in high regard, many of whom do not share my beliefs or opinions.  But I don't choose my friends based upon whether or not their beliefs are in accord with my own.  It's much more about deeds, not words.

"You are oppressed because you are a weakling,  unable to stand up for your own convictions."

Are you serious? Have you ever seen me not stand up for my convictions around here?

"Scientists have proven thousands of things without religion involved, later turning  out to be false."

So what? What has religion ever proved? Has religion ever put a man on the moon? Saved billions from death and disease? When you find a better way for finding out the truth about the nature of reality, then I would be happy to see it. And when you do, I will tell everyone that Quad has invented something better than the scientific process. Until then, stick a sock in it, or at the very least, thank the scientist that invented the computer that allows you to type disparaging messages on a fuck board.  
 
"Why else would you obey your Mom's command to not date Ebony women."

Hey, I also don't date trannys. I often wonder why you pay them.

"Our nation has suffered many times protecting protecting allies other than Israel . Get real !"

Don't try to deny this. You and I both know that we wouldn't give two shits about Israel if it wasn't for 1) feeling guilty about the Holocaust and 2) because Christian loonies believe that we have to protect Israel because it's important in fulfilling the End Times. One of the major reasons why 9/11 happened, at least according to bin Laden, was that we protect Israel. So I gotta ask. Would 3,000 of my fellow countrymen would have been slaughtered if it wasn't for the insane delusions of Christians in positions of high power in the government determining what US foreign policy should be?

"Delusional asshats will propagate whether religion is present or not."

Bullshit. Why is it that Muslims use suicide as a means to accomplish their goals? Is it just because we have a history of being mean to them? Do you see vengeful Vietnamese strapping on vests? Or Cubans? Or Haitians? Why are Christians in various African nations trying to enact laws that will execute gays? Is it just because they're crazy, or did they get that crazy idea from somewhere?

"Just because you like to spend your Sunday's playing engineer with  your toy train track, doesn't mean Aunt Nelly  or Uncle Rosco will, or should feel good,  or have fun, enjoying  the same"

Maybe. But if Nelly and Rosco weren't in church, then they wouldn't be hearing delusional bullshit that does nothing but hinder mankind. Even if Rosco spent his Sundays fucking a goat, he'd still be doing something more productive than attending church.

"The alternative is more accidents and deaths between those you despise and those you love"

No. If my tax dollars are going to be used to facilitate Christians and their delusions, then I say that evolution MUST be taught in their Sunday schools.

"The world would be far better if everyone understood ,  we are all not destined or obligated to think and believe like you ."

I don't want everyone to think and believe like I do. But let's be honest here, Quad. Would *anyone* oppose gay marriage if it wasn't for religion? Would *anyone* be blowing up women's clinics if it wasn't for religion? Would *anyone* piss and moan about paying for contraception if it wasn't for religion?

Religion does nothing but hold this country back. It prevents progress. It harms and kills. It does nothing to make this country or the world a better place.

Is it any surprise that the most religious countries in the world are the worst hell holes on earth and that the least religious countries are the most advanced civilized nations on earth? Where would you rather live? Sweden or Saudi Arabia?

-- Modified on 1/2/2014 1:52:15 AM

Rokk, take your thought experiment and replace "loud rowdy youths" with those who had just attended a meeting of the Army of God or a KKK meeting. Replace your "bible study group" with a meeting between micro-biologists. Are you telling me that your loud rowdy youths could not have been Christians? Do Christians never attend bars?

I never said that monotheism wasn't an important part of the history of man. But to suggest that monotheism improved the quality of life for Europeans is to ignore the history of the Dark Ages. Meanwhile, in the East, people still are polytheists, and don't seem to have the same horrible history with religion as their European counterparts. When was the last time you saw a Buddhist strap on a vest?

"Science has been wrong many, many times in the last few thousand years."  

As opposed to religion, which is wrong EVERY time, and clings to ideas that have been demonstrated to be wrong?

"I fail to see where belief in the Bible has any direct bearing on belief/lack of belief in "climate change".

I guess you've never heard of Senator Jim Inhofe. Maybe you should explore his reasoning for this.  

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/u-s-senator-god-says-that-there-cant-be-global-warming/

Maybe you've never heard of Congressman Paul Broun.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/06/paul-broun-evolution-big-bang_n_1944808.html

"didja ever notice how the term used to be "global warming" and now the term is "climate change"?

Yes, I did notice that. The term was changed because it is a more apt description.

"fwiw, global warming/climate change *is* a hoax"

The only thing you've just demonstrated here is that you're scientifically illiterate.

"Hmm, maybe that's why the term "climate change" is in vogue now--this way, if it gets hotter *or* colder, it's always attributable to "climate change"

You do understand, don't you, that the earth has a complex whether system, right? For instance, it's winter in the northern hemisphere right now. Guess what's going on in the Southern hemisphere right now? If you said, "summer" then you get a cookie.

You do understand, don't you, that if you have a net temperature increase of the earth, that you would have increased water vapor in the air, which would cause some places to suffer an increase of droughts, and other places to suffer an increase of floods. In fact, in the winter, you could even see an increase in snow fall.

"There was a time in the Middle Ages that the best wines in the world were held to be those of British origin.  (What's that from the back of the room?  British?  Yes, British)  As we all know, the most successful vineyards tend to be those in relatively warm areas--which is why southern California, France, Italy, etc, are currently the best wine-producers.  So what does this all mean?  Simply that at some point four- or five-hundred years ago, the Earth was much warmer than it is now."

This has got to be one of the dumbest things I've read in a long time. The reason why Britain produced decent wines had nothing to do with climate, but rather had to do with economics. California produces quality wines because people at the University of California spent 30 years refining yeast and studying fermentation. There are an estimated 10,000 different verities of grapes, of European origin alone, each suited for varying climates.

One could instead take an ice core sample and look at the number of oxygen isotopes in the ice, and use that to determine that temperature 500 years ago. In reality, 500 years ago there was the Little Ice Age.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_ice_age

"The climate and weather patterns of the planet are cyclical. The single biggest controlling factor is one over which we have NO control--to wit, solar activity."

Really? Then explain to me why Venus is hotter than Mercury, despite that Mercury is closer to the sun? Could it be that Venus has a very dense atmosphere with high concentrations of CO2 in it? Venus is so hot that it's surface temperature is hot enough to melt aluminum.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ

"Politicians denying funding to scientists who are "..working within the fields of evolution"?  Huh?  Show me where that's ever happened."

Ask a scientist like Sam Harris about it.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8ZYiLSPDHE

"And btw, why is the funding of scientific research a function of government to begin with?"

Because the private sector is insufficient to fund most things in exploratory science. Would the private sector had ever funded a moon landing? Or mapping the human genome? Or understanding the process of aging? Or building the Large Hadron Collider? Really, how do you convince a corporation to spend money on funding science research into finding the Higgs Boson? How would a corporation make a profit off of this research?

"But don't tell me that every foreign entanglement that we are in should be billed to Israel's account."

Did I say that?

"There are plenty of those around whose "religion" is not Christianity or Islam."

Really? Are you going to ignore that Hitler was a devout Catholic? Or that the Catholic church had a close relationship with the Third Reich? This is the belt buckle that was issued to Nazi soldiers.

http://tinyurl.com/mzp8ovk

Notice the phrase, "Gott mit uns". Don't worry, I'll give you the translation: "God is with us".

Are you really going to tell me that the Catholic church alone hasn't killed more people than Hitler or Stalin?

http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm

"I know that there are some strains of Christianity...that claim that whatever is in the "Creation story" of the Bible...is to be treated literally--but that's a very small number."

Really?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/onethird-americans-believe-bible-literally-true.aspx

"if you read the Genesis account in a less-critical manner, you'll find that it almost supports the modern "scientific" theory:"

LOLOL! Really? So you're telling me that the earth was created at the beginning of the universe (Genesis 1:1), instead of it being created when the universe was already 9 billion years old? Are you really telling me that vegetation existed (Genesis 1:11) before the sun? (Genesis 1:16). Are you really telling me that the earth formed before the sun, when in reality the earth formed from the accretion disc leftover from the formation of the sun?

"Is it ok to use cops to direct traffic coming out of schools?"

Sure. Of course, there isn't a separation between schools and state, now is there?

"It would be perfectly ok to have cops directing traffic to and from an Occupy Wall Street rally, but manifestly wrong to provide the same level of safety and security for a Tea Party rally...After all, those Tea Party people are all just horrible Bible-thumpers!"

Of course, not. Tea Party members might be bible thumbers, but a political protest is not a religious practice.

"my tax dollars are wasted on all kinds of things."

But the one thing your tax dollars are not supposed to be wasted on is using it to facilitate or establish religion.

"Why in the world is the government in the marriage business to begin with?"

Because marriage is a legal contract, which only a government can legally enforce.

"It really feels to me like you have...a tremendous amount of antipathy towards those who don't share your beliefs".

Nonsense. I don't think I've ever met anyone who shared all of my beliefs. But that in no way makes me, or any other rational person for that matter, to be able to make an intellectually honest analysis of the fruits of religious delusion. In my estimation, it has caused great harm to mankind, and has done little to nothing to create a net benefit for us all.

Of course rowdy youths can be Christians--and Christians have been known to bend an elbow.  The point is that a typical random late-night encounter with a group of rowdy youths is more likely to come out favorably depending on the reason why they're out so late.  For that matter, I'd also feel better if I encountered a bunch of rowdy youths if they were all wearing "Mr. Spock" ears and singing Klingon opera, too.  So what are in disagreement about here, exactly?  People who are engaging in benign activities are less likely to cause you trouble than those who are. Most of the time, a late-night Bible study group is not going to be looking to mess with you.

Yes, the East has largely avoided having fought wars based upon religious differences.  Don't tell me that means that the East has not had many, many wars over the centuries.  People can find all sorts of reasons to go to war.  That's sort of my point.  In some crazy alternate universe where the Abrahamic faiths were never established, I'm sure that there still would have been plenty of wars fought.

Religion is wrong every time?  Really?  So when the Bible says, "Thou shalt not murder," I suppose that's wrong too, and therefore it's perfectly ok to murder?  Don't be silly.  Yeah, sure, you can point out some wacky shit in the Bible, especially in the early going--polygamy, indentured servitude bordering on slavery, etc.  Nevertheless, to claim that religion is "wrong" because the Creation myths (when interpreted in a literal fashion) are falsifiable seems strange to me.  There are plenty of good lessons and "teachable moments" throughout the Bible, also--and I don't get so wrapped up in the need for every verse to be scientifically or historically verified in order to look for some deeper meaning.

I am not going to be placed in the position of being an apologist for every Senator or Congressman with loony ideas--if we're going to play that game, I could probably knock down all 535 pins without breaking a sweat.

I still maintain that global warming/climate change is a hoax, designed (perhaps not consciously, but designed nonetheless) to be a self-supporting "industry" of sorts where lots of second-rate "scientists" get to kiss up to a lot of second-rate politicians (is there any other kind?) in what is essentially a scam.  Yes, I've done the reading, I'm a bright boy, and I've exposed myself to both sides of the argument as much as any layman can be expected to be.  I think it's a bunch of bunk.  And btw, people who steadfastly maintain that "the science is settled" strike me as having all the worst character traits that you ascribe to "religionists"--people who are unpersuadable by new facts and new evidence.

The wine thing is just one example.  There are others.  You reference things like studies of plant DNA.  Take a look sometime at studies of plant DNA in Greenland.  That evidence suggests that the planet was once quite a few degrees warmer than it is today.  And what about the "global warming team" still stuck in Antarctica last I checked?  Global warming, climate change, whatever--that stuff is the bunk.

No time at the moment to watch YouTube clips--but I will sometime soon, and then I can debate you on that point.

Private sector not able to fund big science projects?  Bull.  There are so many private entities now readying for space exploration--unless the US makes a radical turn back to the kind of vision thing that JFK was so good at, the next boots to hit the ground on the Moon or Mars will not have the Stars and Stripes or the Hammer and Sickle on them--they'll most likely have "Google" (or some other large private company) stamped on them.

No, you didn't say that every foreign entanglement the US gets itself into is because of its policy toward Israel.  But you did single out one particular alliance as the primary motivator of all US foreign policy.  I suspect if there was one nation in the entire Middle East, which had a Western-style liberal democracy (small "L", small "D"), and it did *not* have an historical root in an ethnicity which was held together for thousands of years in exile largely by clinging to its religion, you wouldn't be nearly so hostile about the United States being supportive of such a country.

Hitler being a devout Catholic:  Yes, he was born and raised as a Catholic.  Devout as he became an adult and became a political leader?  Meh.  Historical evidence can be found to support or to refute that proposition.  It's not as clear as you suggest.  And yes, the Catholic Church has at best a mixed record on using its influence to act against National Socialist Germany.  But so what?  Are you suggesting that National Socialism was some sort of outgrowth or byproduct of Catholicism?  That's a big stretch.  Hitler has also been widely reputed to have a tremendous antipathy towards religion, and a desire to return Germany to its pagan roots.  I think the best you can say is that he was a politician, and paid lip service to Christianity in order to advance his political fortune.

I'll continue to maintain that all the malevolent "-isms" of the 20th century combined account for more deaths than the aggregate actions of the Catholic church over the last two thousand years.

I never cited a statistic such as the Gallup study you mentioned.  I referred to my conversations with clergy of various flavors; in my experience (anecdotal evidence, I know), clergy don't like to become embroiled in discussions like "but the Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs!", or "If Cain killed Abel, and Adam and Eve had no other children at that point, where did Cain go to 'know' his wife?".  Stuff like that is a no-win proposition for them, and they know it.  In general, they hold these stories to be just that--"stories" (although they may make extreme efforts to deflect the conversation in another direction, or be less direct in characterizing the early Genesis stuff as stories).

This insistence on literalism in interpreting those early Genesis "stories" appears to be quite a big issue for you.  My attempt to show that Genesis conflicts with current scientific theory only if you insist upon a literal interpretation of the Bible seems to be a big stumbling block for you.  We don't see it the same way.  We're never going to convince one another.

"No separation of schools and state":  Obviously a reference to the widely-known Constitutional phrase about "separation of Church and State"--except for one problem:  There is no such phrase to be found anywhere in the Constitution.  That phrase entered the public vernacular after a footnote in a Supreme Court ruling issued in 1947 used the phrase.

Well, guess what.  There are many Supreme Court decisions with which I disagree.  Five people in black robes don't (or at least shouldn't) have ultimate authority over any issue they wish to examine.  The Supreme Court has been wrong many, many times.  Like in Dred Scott v Sanford.  Like in Plessy v Fergusson.  Like in Wickard v Fillburn.  Like in Bush v. Gore.  Like in NFIB v Sebellius.  The list is endless.

Anyway:  The point is that we should be dealing with facts, not with intent.  The fact is that there is a large amount of traffic surrounding mosques on Fridays, synagogues on Saturdays, and churches on Sundays.  The reason the traffic occurs is wholly irrelevant.  Remember that not only shall "Congress shall make no Law respecting an establishment of religion," but also none "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".  One *could* argue that to withhold traffic police from concentrations of places of worship is an act which prohibits "free exercise".

You miss the point of my "government in the marriage business" argument.  Yes, marriage is a legal contract.  The "civil union contract" which has been much in vogue for the last twenty or so years (until some states very recently have begun to allow gay marriage outright) functioned in every way as a legally binding contract, in exactly the same manner as a marriage contract.  Solution is obvious:  Abolish "marriage" as a governmental construct, replace it with "civil union", allow clergy to perform marriage ceremonies, one of the consequences being that the clergy get to sign on the appropriate line on the "civil union" document, and people can go and live their lives.  We're hung up on a phrase here, nothing more.  Duck Dynasty notwithstanding, most people in the US have a "live and let live" philosophy.  If my gay neighbors call themselves "married" because they've had a civil union ceremony, let them call themselves married.  If I personally don't "believe" in gay marriage, then I guess I won't be a member of the church that performed that ceremony.

You say you have no antipathy.  You immediately go on to say that no "rational person" can "intellectually honest[ly] analyze..the fruits of religious delusion".  So in your mind, only non-believers are rational people?  You make it seem as if those who do believe are suffering from some clinical disorder, which should be found in the appropriate place in the DSM-V.

That's pretty harsh.  Rational non-believers = good (smart, should be held in high regard), the poor, pathetic, irrational non-believers = bad (dumb, should be held in low regard).

And what happens when you find yourself in the minority (as apparently you are, as witness your own cited Gallup poll)?  Will you join with your fellow "rationalists" and assert your authority by virtue of your non-belief?  And then?  You and your "rationalists" will assume the reins of power, and send the rest of us off to re-education camps?  To the gas chambers?

Hmm.  What does all of this sound like?  Oh, right…all those destructive "-isms" of the 20th century…

From an agnostic perspective , your last few lines line said the most , I agree completely .

The first was during a bus caravan going to Detroit for my induction physical. Watching the lights of the line of buses weaving their path through the early morning dusk, with the Doors song: "This Is The End" playing over and over again in my mind.

Your post shows you have absolutely NO understanding of science and your religious beliefs are primitive, at best. You are welcome to them and I bear no ill will, but the statements on global warming convince me you've not had any basic science and I even question if you've been to an accredited college. The overwhelming consensus is that climate change is real and human-driven (among educate, science professionals).

There are plenty of good lessons and teachable moments throughout the Bible? Really? Like say the Book of Job? To me, the Bible reads more like torture porn.

It's impossible to defend loons like Senator Inhofe and Paul Broun. But that's not the point. The point is that we would be better off as a nation, if people like Inhofe and Broun believed in reason instead of superstition.

People who deny climate change are like people who deny the Holocaust. It shows a complete lack of understanding of the science.

Plant DNA in Greenland? Wait a second, are you aware that the continents move? Have you never heard of plate tectonics? People regularly get stuck in Antarctica. It's a difficult place to live and to travel to. What's your point?

The private sector will fund big science projects, but only if there is a way to make a profit off of it. They might look into making money off of space exploration, but not before NASA figured out a way to get to space to begin with.

The same is true with anything. Why has the private sector not pony'ed up for anything that advances scientific discovery? You don't see Google building the Large Hydron Collider.

Nor will I claim that human activity has no bearing on the biology of the earth.

Although somewhat believable...  

Why would a climate scientist disagree, with the science that backs his/her capital?

You've just proven my point. Professional science organizations do peer reviewed studies with no political agenda and funding comes from all sorts of sources. It's very different outside D.C. where you have done your reviews.

Posted By: bigvern

Why would a climate scientist disagree, with the science that backs his/her capital?  
   
   
 Look at who NASA sourced their info from...  
   
 American Association for the Advancement of Science  
   
 American Chemical Society  
   
 American Geophysical Union  
   
 American Medical Association  
   
 American Meteorological Society  
   
 American Physical Society  
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
 

-- Modified on 1/2/2014 3:24:20 PM

I would most likely forget to piss into the cup, and would just piss all over the asshole forcing (or at least trying to force me) to take the test in the first place.

This morning it said "State of the Church Address"  I was pretty judgmental when I deciphered that as "We Need Money"

because I don't recall us having any such convo

...not that I want to turn this into a dick-slapping contest.

In the 1970s, all the major newsweeklies (a vanishing concept, I know) used to run articles every so often about the "coming Ice Age".  Now these same newsweeklies (or their modern-day heirs like HuffPo and Salon) push "global warming".  In both cases, "the science was settled".  All a bunch of BS.  Not many column inches are likely to be devoted to articles which state, "Hey, the climate's great!  Move to the next article, nothing to see here,,,".

Scientific consensus?  Doesn't anybody recall how the East Anglia "global warming" research was proven to be a total fraud, in 2009?  And again, I make reference to the global warming scientists still stuck in Antarctica last I checked.

btw, nice way to smear somebody:  In your first paragraph, you claim I have no understanding of science, and that my religious beliefs are "primitive" (whatever the hell that means--and both are unfounded allegations, which you assert as "facts").

In your second paragraph, you contend that "..religious fundamentalists [are] up to their eyeballs in acts they regularly condemn and want to make illegal."  So first, you lump me in with "religious fundamentalists" (a buzzword-y way to dismiss as a crazy kook--and whatever a religious fundamentalist is, I am not one--unless mere belief in a Supreme Being is now = "religious fundamentalism").  Then you slyly suggest that I am "up to [my] eyeballs in acts [I] ...condemn and want to make illegal".  I don't believe I've condemned anyone here, nor advocated for anything to be made illegal.

Keep it up with the slanderous allegation thing, though.  It's the only way you'll ever win an argument.

Thanks for clearing that up. I see you can not separate your "beliefs" from your "views"

Posted By: pleasureglans

You've just proven my point. Professional science organizations do peer reviewed studies with no political agenda and funding comes from all sorts of sources. It's very different outside D.C. where you have done your reviews.  
   
 Do you honestly believe The American Medical Association would join some "conspiracy" to get research funding? They don't even do climate research but they certainly are capable of reviewing and understanding scientific reports.  
   
 Climate change deniers at this point are like flat earthers in the days of Columbus.  
   

Posted By: bigvern

Why would a climate scientist disagree, with the science that backs his/her capital?  
     
     
  Look at who NASA sourced their info from...  
     
  American Association for the Advancement of Science  
     
  American Chemical Society  
     
  American Geophysical Union  
     
  American Medical Association  
     
  American Meteorological Society  
     
  American Physical Society  
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
   
   
 -- Modified on 1/2/2014 3:24:20 PM

-- Modified on 1/2/2014 1:21:04 PM

The first thing they all agree on is, "We Need Money"

who has been forced to take a piss test?   Does the BATF now come around in their black outfits with auto weapons and force you to piss at the point of a gun?   I haven't seen that yet.    
If a pedt is the requirement of a business in order to hire you,  what is your beef?  Did someone force you to apply for the job?  
I was forced to take a piss test once in my life. It was a requirement of getting on the freedom bird to leave Vietnam.  I suppose I still could have refused, but I didn't see the logic. .  
Despite the best Progressive efforts, this is still a free country.  If you don't like an employer's pre-employment requirements, then don't accept a job there.  
I have the same feeling about people in no-skill jobs that want protest because they aren't paid enough. But, that is a whole different thread.

Winter ,Spring ,Summer Fall  

You talking about this East Anglica study? Initially, accusations of fraud were made and FOX News reported it night and day. Investigation revealed there WAS NO FRAUD.

Thanks to the Patriot Act ANY employer of 200 or more is now required to mandate piss tests for an applicant. And low and behold if you live in a State with MM legislation it makes NO difference when one shows his doctors prescription. It has become a modern "Jim Crow" situation for countless people who have found legitimate/legal relief for their medical conditions.  

where a john was complaining about money-grubbing providers!  

and the last time I was forced to take a piss test was while in the employ of our mutual Uncle Sam.

I have never required any prospective employee to take a piss test with the exception of those who will be operating heavy equipment, as much of a Libertarian I am at heart, the liability issues are too great if I want my insurance company to cover me. To demand that an office employee prove by pissing into a cup that they aren't smoking an occasional joint, or enjoying any other drug on THEIR time is an insult to them, and I don't believe in treating adults like they are little children.

..are like people who said that Galileo was wrong, and Ptolemy was right.

More silliness.  Comparing heavily-documented history to scientific theories or models is clike comparing apples and oranges.

The history of the Holocaust is a settled matter, because of the photos, newsreels, and first-hand accounts of those who were there (although it scares the shit out of me when I contemplate what happens when the last Holocaust survivor dies).

Global warming is not a settled matter.  New research and new inquiry constantly falsifies "settled" science--just as Newtonian physics was a "settled" matter, until the Michelson-Morley experiments and the Theory of Relativity came along (and who knows?  Even the Theory of Relativity may come to be un-"settled", or at least modified, whenever quantum physicists can adequately explain the disconnect between the world of the infinitesimally small with that of the grotesquely large).

Plant DNA in Greenland research is an outgrowth of your favorite thing:  Scientific research.  Yes, plate tectonics and other factors were taken into account.  Your much revered scientific method has led to the conclusion that the planet was much warmer 115,000 years ago than it is today.

More silliness…

One during employment passed, although I shouldn't have. I didn't request to see the results.

Airline pilots, Heavy equipment operators,  et al. I can see. IMO the public safety issues outweigh the individuals right to privacy, but  office workers? Salesman? Store clerks? WTF business is it of ours if the guy that brings me my fries left a blunt burning in the break room as long as he can get my food to me without dropping it?

When I hire and/or fire someone, I don't need a fucking drug test to be able to tell if that person is competent. If the person can get the job done, Frankly I don't give a fuck if he stays as high as WW all fucking day, OTOH if he's a moron and cant' do his job, the same thing applies. Who gives a fuck if he is a moron because he's stoned like Willy, or just stupid like AF? It really doesn't matter to me WHY a person is competent or incompetent, the only thing that matters is whether or not he/she can do the job. What that person does after hours is quite frankly none of my business.

You're not a pussy when you don't speak out when outnumber 100-1, You simply value your life. I have seen what these "good christians" can do when running in pack. These are the same "good christians" who still say in some parts of Kentucky that I have seen first hand "Nigger, don't let the sun set with you still in this bar" and I knew they meant every word. I've seen it happen as recently as a couple of years ago to a friend of mine, He was a big bad dude, but even he said as we left the bar "I might be able to whip four or five of them, but I can't beat them all" It's easy to be a "tough guy" on the internet, but sometimes you have to pick the fights that you can win. and taking on a whole town of "good christians" whipped into a fever pitch is not the way to die old.

I believe I was a very good provider because I could connect on a spiritual level in my fantasy.  Same technique a good charismatic preacher uses with his entertainment.

I was witness to a public solicitation for volunteer work that could transcend into paid employment if one proves themselves well at the tasks. They don't piss test you for your volunteer work. But if you are good at it and they consider "hiring" you a PEDT is mandatory. The job was working as a CSR in 411 type phone bank.
 

"But you did single out one particular alliance as the primary motivator of all US foreign policy."

No, I did not. I would say that Israel plays an important role in determining our foreign policy in the Middle East, and on the whole, that alliance has been more costly to the US than it has been beneficial. I would be hostile towards any nation who's support we gave was the direct result of 3,000 of our fellow countrymen being slaughtered by terrorists on our own soil. I suspect that anyone who loved their country more than their delusions would feel the same way I do.

"Hitler being a devout Catholic:  Yes, he was born and raised as a Catholic.  Devout as he became an adult and became a political leader?  Meh."

No, you do not get to pooh-pooh Hitler's faith. Hitler made it more than clear that he was a Catholic. He made it clear when he said,

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

He made it clear when it said, "We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls.... We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian."

He made it clear when he said, "We are determined, as leaders of the nation, to fulfill as a national government the task which has been given to us, swearing fidelity only to God, our conscience, and our people...It will take Christianity, as the basis of our collective morality, and the family as the nucleus of our people and state, under its firm protection....May God Almighty take our work into his grace, give true form to our will, bless our insight, and endow us with the trust of our people."

No, I never even suggested that Nazism was a outgrowth or by product of Catholicism. But the two certainly were compatible with each other.

Otherwise pictures like this wouldn't exist.

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e372/tlthe5th/nazi-vatican/bonhoeffer_hitler-1.jpg

http://www.flyingchariotministries.com/Hitler%20and%20church%202.jpg

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/priests_salute_hitler.jpg

"I'll continue to maintain that all the malevolent "-isms" of the 20th century combined account for more deaths than the aggregate actions of the Catholic church over the last two thousand years."

Well, considering that one of those "isms" was a Christian movement, as Hitler explicitly said it was, I don't think you can legitimately separate the two. You also cannot know that the Catholic church isn't responsible for more deaths, without knowing the full number of deaths directly attributed to this delusion called Christianity. While Stalin and Mao only lived a few decades, Catholics have been busy killing in the name of God for millennia.

"I never cited a statistic such as the Gallup study you mentioned."

Well, I did. You claimed that few people take the story of creation literally. I just demonstrated that your claim was wrong.

This *is* a big issue, because we have elected politicians who are making decisions that we don't have to worry about climate change because "the Lord promised never to flood the earth again". No, I'm not kidding.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1328366/John-Shimkus-Global-warming-wont-destroy-planet-God-promised-Noah.html

Now, regardless of whether *you* accept the established science on this matter, how comfortable are *you* with the idea that we have politicians making decisions that affect the fate of our nation, and they don't use reason, or rational thought to make those decisions, but instead rely on the insane ramblings of stone age barbarians written thousands of years ago?

"Obviously a reference to the widely-known Constitutional phrase about "separation of Church and State"--except for one problem:  There is no such phrase to be found anywhere in the Constitution. That phrase entered the public vernacular after a footnote in a Supreme Court ruling issued in 1947 used the phrase."

Actually, the origin of that phrase came from Jefferson, when he wrote about a "wall of separation" between church and state. You're correct, the phrase doesn't exist in the Constitution, but the IDEA certainly does. I refer you to the very first clause of the very first Amendment of the US Constitution:

"Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion"

Calling anything a "civil union" instead of a "marriage" is really nothing more than reestablishing "separate, but equal". I don't think that gays should have to be forced to accept 2nd class citizenship, much less 2nd class marriage rights. If a particular church refuses to marry someone for any reason, I have no problem with that. But there is no reason to deny any group of people equal rights under the law.

Yes, I *am* saying that if you believe in a cloud being, then you're delusional. If someone told you that when they eat corn flakes in the morning, they're really eating the body of Elvis, then that person has lost his mind. But if you replace cornflakes with a cracker, and Elvis with Jesus, then you're just a Catholic. Reasonable and rational people don't have invisible friends.

Would it be rational to send delusional people off to gas chambers? Besides, feeding Christians to lions is so much more entertaining. All kidding aside, do you really think that just because I'm an atheist, that it means that I don't value the rights found in the First Amendment?

thought experiment. Yes, I'd much rather the group of teenagers be coming from a Bible-study, than street activities. And, I do think, in many ways that the USA is better off because of it's Christian heritage. But please, don't confuse weather vs. climate; "They went out looking for proof of their theory that the polar icecaps are receding.  Not only are they not receding, they've expanded so much that this team of scientists and their hangers-on are stuck there, and so far at least have been unable to be rescued." I've been part of teams who helped rescue people under various weather conditions, but never climate conditions. And, I've been a member of evangelical churches. Yet, I've also worked in a high-tech Physics lab. So, I have a good sense of the difference between the scientific method vs. issues of faith!   Please don't confuse the two!  

Great question;  
If you were raised in the system, its hard to just shake it off entirely even when logic tells you otherwise.  My question to you would be how do you define religion?

Well said. In the Bible Belt, there is a pack mentality. "Loving Christians" will string you up faster than a child molester caught in the act if you dare to disagree with their views. Growing up an intelligent, book-reading, independent thinker in that atmosphere is not being "free."

All that knowledge of religious history and you can't outline a single positive?

a system of beliefs  

It keeps stupid, and  otherwise bad people in line out of a fear of everlasting hell. Good people don't need a fear of burning in hell to be good, but I guess we can still call that a "positive" thing. but it certainly doesn't outweigh the countless bad things about living your life based on a fairy tale that I could name. Not the least of which are the millions and millions of people who have died in the name of "My God is better than your God"