The tyranny of religion and the freed...

The tyranny of religion and the freedom of atheism

There are 177 comments on the Examiner.com story from Jan 15, 2014, titled The tyranny of religion and the freedom of atheism. In it, Examiner.com reports that:

On occasion, the atheist podcast and radio show " Reasonable Doubts " will feature an interview with a high-profile atheist who was formerly a religious activist.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Examiner.com.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#62 Jan 22, 2014
Atheist Silurist wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you suggesting that it's only your theistic belief that prevents you from acting like a homicidal maniac? A psychopath is still a psychopath with or without theistic belief. It may be fortunate for people around you that you do hold a religious belief,but many people who have no such religious hangups live ethically without any problem. The same can't be said for the likes of those pedophile priests that are protected by the Vatican.
Thank you. You got what the other violent thinking poster didn't get in my questions. Violence is violence with or with out belief and or reasoning.
My point was that many on this planet subject themselves to religious philosophy to restrict what would other wise be a natural instinct to do, to be violent when one wanted or needed to be violent. A minority in this conversation deemed atheists do the same but don't use a theism philosophy to restrict themselves from violence. In the end people of both groups will find a reason to not be violent unless need be or the want to be violent is to strong to resist.
Thus my actual point you caught, we as humans are given to violence. It is in our nature. Just as the urge to breed is in our nature. But we have taught ourselves in the last few thousand years to restrict that violent nature and to restrict that urge to breed with out another's permission.
So back to the question. Aside of the laws of our societies made to restrict our activities and our human moral compass taught to us from generation to generation, I know from what source people of theism come from to restrict their actions. But from what source does an atheist use?

Since: Nov 12

Salem, MA

#63 Jan 22, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Of your question I am a theist. I see all sorts of evidence to believe theism is incorrect. But I see more evidence that says something is going on that is beyond our comprehension. Like how in the earth's raw beginning did a single 'supposed' asteroid become slammed into by who knows how many more and always maintained the present course of travel it's in. A little farther out or a little farther in for our rotation and life wouldn't exist as it does. I have never read a single theory to explain that away to my satisfaction. The fact that we are the only planet with life evolved as it is, well that say's it all for that discussion, their is no explanation.
I lean to something intelligent having a hand in our beginning. I can't say what when where or why of that intelligence but it's a feeling I have had since I could remember to remember my feelings.
First you should understand probability arguments because everything by nature is infinitely improbable, but no matter how improbable, it must exist in this state.. Hence your argument is like trying to argue how improbably a specific rain drop would fall from 10+ thousand feet and hit you in the exact specific spot on your nose. This calculating your probability of where you will be, wind, and any number events that could occur such as a bird blocking the shot.. The probability of the specific rain drop hitting you on your nose in the exact spot that it does is astronomically improbable. But if it does, the probability becomes meaningless regardless of how improbable.. And what you don't get is that it's all entirely governed by interacting forces of nature.. As in there is no accident here, and there is no intent to have an accident, it happened due to the variables and forces in which made it happen as it did. There is no magic man required or involved here. Hence you need to realize that the forces of nature are "FORCES".. And these systems of feedback and interacting forces are the same principles that govern cognitive dynamics and function as well. The are complex adaptive systems with feedback and are necessary for not only the existence of the Universe we emerged from, but for our or any conscious being's ability to have cognition and even a conscious state to begin with.

And you have no evidence to suggest we are the only planet to which has life.. Big bangs could be as common as lightning.. Furthermore, once you get into infinite volume, space, and time scales, such arguments are meaningless. Hence, our Universe could be one out of hundreds of trillions before it in which finally managed to give rise to life... You have no means to suggest your argument as anything but an appeal to ignorance.

And clearly you didn't read my article "Existence: Book Of Origins".. You know, because the answer you seek is in the title..

Since: Nov 12

Salem, MA

#64 Jan 22, 2014
Forgot this isn't the tread in which I posted the link to my article.. Disregard the charge that you hadn't read it... However here is the link in which pretty much kills the whole concept of GOD entirely:
http://thejackelscolumn.wordpress.com/2013/11...
Again my apologies.. Cheers!

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#65 Jan 22, 2014
TheJackelantern wrote:
<quoted text>
First you should understand probability arguments because everything by nature is infinitely improbable, but no matter how improbable, it must exist in this state.. Hence your argument is like trying to argue how improbably a specific rain drop would fall from 10+ thousand feet and hit you in the exact specific spot on your nose. This calculating your probability of where you will be, wind, and any number events that could occur such as a bird blocking the shot.. The probability of the specific rain drop hitting you on your nose in the exact spot that it does is astronomically improbable. But if it does, the probability becomes meaningless regardless of how improbable.. And what you don't get is that it's all entirely governed by interacting forces of nature.. As in there is no accident here, and there is no intent to have an accident, it happened due to the variables and forces in which made it happen as it did. There is no magic man required or involved here. Hence you need to realize that the forces of nature are "FORCES".. And these systems of feedback and interacting forces are the same principles that govern cognitive dynamics and function as well. The are complex adaptive systems with feedback and are necessary for not only the existence of the Universe we emerged from, but for our or any conscious being's ability to have cognition and even a conscious state to begin with.
And you have no evidence to suggest we are the only planet to which has life.. Big bangs could be as common as lightning.. Furthermore, once you get into infinite volume, space, and time scales, such arguments are meaningless. Hence, our Universe could be one out of hundreds of trillions before it in which finally managed to give rise to life... You have no means to suggest your argument as anything but an appeal to ignorance.
And clearly you didn't read my article "Existence: Book Of Origins".. You know, because the answer you seek is in the title..
Actually I do understand probability arguments. The very first one for me as explained by scientists/mathematicians is that we shouldn't exist. But the counter fact remains that we do. And this statement said in many ways by by many others in the past and today is where it get's sticky and argumentative..."...is that it's all entirely governed by interacting forces of nature.."
You assume incorrectly of me if you assume I don't already understand the obvious of what you said. And I never called anything "an accident". So your bad not mine on that one. And as science works, I do have evidence that life doesn't exist as we exist else where because we haven't found any yet. So when we find one or more planets with life evolved as our own, than science will have proved what you claim that isn't true at present.
And the funny part of this statement of your's, "And you have no evidence to suggest we are the only planet to which has life." is very relative to hearing a theist claim you have no evidence to suggest an intelligence of some sort didn't cause to be what exists at present. Both claims are based on the presumption that just because you can't prove it exists doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Understand?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#66 Jan 22, 2014
TheJackelantern wrote:
Forgot this isn't the tread in which I posted the link to my article.. Disregard the charge that you hadn't read it... However here is the link in which pretty much kills the whole concept of GOD entirely:
http://thejackelscolumn.wordpress.com/2013/11...
Again my apologies.. Cheers!
No one can kill the god concept any more than one can kill the concept of evolution. They both exist in the minds of one single specie of millions to billions that have existed since the birth of the very first living organism on this planet.
Amused

Lowell, MA

#67 Jan 23, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
The atheists I have known with children spent more time keeping their children from religious influences like they avoided themselves than allowing their child to learn of theism. That's indoctrination. You know, where a parent spends time during the up bringing of a child and expressing to them why they believe or don't believe like other kids believe. And most of those children now young adults are mostly atheists like their parents because of their parents influence/indoctrination techniques.
Atheists are no different than theists. They want their children to be as they are in belief or disbelief. Very few of either group open a door for the child to learn on their own as you propose atheists do for children. Fricking bunch of crock.
You apparently don't actually know any atheists. Very few of us avoided religious influences as children. Most of us were raised in one religion or another. I was raided catholic. Mass every Sunday. I was even an altar boy, so I pretty much went to mass every day of the week for several years.

The thing atheists have in common is not that we evaded religious indoctrination as children, but that as we grew older, we thought about what we had been taught. Critical thinking and reason brought us to atheism, not lack of effort by our parents to indoctrinate us.

Atheists value thinking over blind acceptance of any idea, including atheism. If my kids adopt a religious belief as a result of thought, as opposed to indoctrination, they have turned out like me. They think, instead of accepting whatever belief is crammed down their throat. What they think is less important than the fact that it is the result of application of reason to what they are told.

Since: Nov 12

Salem, MA

#68 Jan 23, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually I do understand probability arguments. The very first one for me as explained by scientists/mathematicians is that we shouldn't exist. But the counter fact remains that we do. And this statement said in many ways by by many others in the past and today is where it get's sticky and argumentative..."...is that it's all entirely governed by interacting forces of nature.."
You assume incorrectly of me if you assume I don't already understand the obvious of what you said. And I never called anything "an accident". So your bad not mine on that one. And as science works, I do have evidence that life doesn't exist as we exist else where because we haven't found any yet. So when we find one or more planets with life evolved as our own, than science will have proved what you claim that isn't true at present.
And the funny part of this statement of your's, "And you have no evidence to suggest we are the only planet to which has life." is very relative to hearing a theist claim you have no evidence to suggest an intelligence of some sort didn't cause to be what exists at present. Both claims are based on the presumption that just because you can't prove it exists doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Understand?
I'm not assuming you don't understand this,, I addressed your post, but I basically used it to reply to the subject because I hear a lot of fallacious arguments on that subject... And btw, no intelligence caused anything to exist because that would require such a being to create existence itself to which is impossible. We can only manipulate what already exists into new states, patterns, or forms ect. Yes intelligence can be a part of causality, as Existence itself is Causality to which we are a part of. However, cognitive systems and more importantly the conscious state does not exist without cause.. The conscious state is a product of the processes in which produce it much in the same way in principle the image on your computer screen is a product of the processes that produce it. If the question here is about causality, the direct answer is literally Existence itself, and we are simply states in which existence can take..

However, knowing the answer and understanding it are two different things. It's like knowing light allows you to see, but understanding how that works is entirely another issue. But when contemplating a GOD, the existential paradox and even the opinion paradox entirely destroys it to the point of either all or nothing.. Hence it's either moot or nonsense. And that is what happens when you move the goal post as far as you can in either direction to the furthest extremes (Atheist = no GOD(S)/- Pantheism = Existence itself as GOD/Everything is GOD).. Thus I require no evidence, it's a logically self-refuting concept.

Since: Nov 12

Salem, MA

#69 Jan 23, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
No one can kill the god concept any more than one can kill the concept of evolution. They both exist in the minds of one single specie of millions to billions that have existed since the birth of the very first living organism on this planet.
Clearly you didn't read the article.. It's irrelevant if the concept is in the thoughts of someone as this is about the principle of the concept in itself.. Hence you clearly avoided dealing with the questions and made an appeal to the delusional thinking of millions and billions of people.. So let me extract this for you in 3 simple questions while understanding that Existence itself is defined as the totality and essence of all that exists (Universal Set of All Sets). Thus It’s every rule, force to cause, process, function, state of being, person, place, object, substance, or thing.. It is causality, the totality of power, information, purpose, meaning, and what is, was, or what will ever become. It is the Origin of everything :

Q1: What is GOD without existence?
A1: Non-existent, meaningless, pointless, irrelevant.
Q2: If Existence is GOD, then what of existence is not?
A2: If existence is GOD, then by definition everything and everyone of existence is GOD.
Q3: If Existence is not GOD, then what of existence is?
A3: If Existence to which is the sum total and essence of everything is not “GOD”, then by definition there isn’t anything of existence to which is.
Pretty simple deductive logic with a logical conclusion breaking down the concept of GOD to either being literally moot or entirely non-existent altogether. Needless to say this was pretty destructive to what little faith I had left in GOD. I would even argue further to say it is even more ridiculous for one part of existence to worship another part of itself as “GOD” as such would be the ultimate case of delusional Narcissism. I could not reconcile as the whole concept of GOD had thus become logically moot and nonsensical.

Furthermore, you can feel free to explain, if you disagree, our origins, essence of being, why we are here, how we got here, consciousness, or causality without Existence.. If you can do that, I would be impressed. Essentially the entire concept of GOD is utter nonsense. So you or anyone worshiping anything at all as a GOD is essentially worshiping another part of existence, or imagined concept of existence itself. Me and you are literally existence itself having this discussion with itself as we are both in and of existence..

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#70 Jan 23, 2014
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
You apparently don't actually know any atheists. Very few of us avoided religious influences as children. Most of us were raised in one religion or another. I was raided catholic. Mass every Sunday. I was even an altar boy, so I pretty much went to mass every day of the week for several years.
The thing atheists have in common is not that we evaded religious indoctrination as children, but that as we grew older, we thought about what we had been taught. Critical thinking and reason brought us to atheism, not lack of effort by our parents to indoctrinate us.
Atheists value thinking over blind acceptance of any idea, including atheism. If my kids adopt a religious belief as a result of thought, as opposed to indoctrination, they have turned out like me. They think, instead of accepting whatever belief is crammed down their throat. What they think is less important than the fact that it is the result of application of reason to what they are told.
The fact that you're disputing experiences of what I have experienced with atheist parent(s)as not being true as far as you're concerned, means little to me.
Second, this statement of your's is quite twisted in context. "Very few of us (atheists is your meaning here as children) avoided religious influences as children. Most of us (atheists since childhood years is your meaning here) were raised in one religion or another. I was raided catholic. Mass every Sunday. I was even an altar boy, so I pretty much went to mass every day of the week for several years." It's a bit twisted to state as a atheist in childhood you also believed in a God as a child. Seems you're a bit confused here.
And this blanket statement of theists only proves your prejudicial religious bigotry. "Atheists value thinking over blind acceptance of any idea," Well I got a clue for you, atheists in general that I have met don't value thinking any less or more than a theist. But the fact that you want to say/insinuate theists blindly accept what is taught with no questions prove you as I stated. By the way, most atheists I have met are angry atheists as I define them. Seldom if ever do I come across an atheist who isn't angry and holds theists in contempt as you do. Angry atheists as in this thread proves my point seem to have this need to put down theists in their quest to being a atheist. Just saying.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#71 Jan 23, 2014
TheJackelantern wrote:
And btw, no intelligence caused anything to exist because that would require such a being to create existence itself to which is impossible. We can only manipulate what already exists into new states, patterns, or forms ect.
I took the above as it hits a point of my own thinking. Actually it hits the point of many who are changing the traditional way this intelligence is concerned and how things came to be.
It is a new theory that this intelligence didn't make everything from nothing, but as humans have done it, it used existing material to create other things to establish a patter for evolution to evolve from be it non-life forms and than life forms.
Example. Have you ever had an aquarium? It's the best example I can think of for an intelligence creating things from existing material. I bought a tank several years ago. I put rocks in the bottom, the seedling of plants in those rocks and affixed a device to supply constant oxygen to the water. I even added another device to cause the water to move about. I than put life in the tank to swim in it. The tank over several years has evolved to the point where I can go several days if I wish without adding food because of the tank supplying needed nutriments for the fish from algae, the plants and the crap from the fish they actually eat again. I took from existing materials and began a world and except for me maintaining it from time to time, it's almost self sufficient in existing on it's own evolution process.
So as cockeyed as it sounds, I think it's well possible(not provable of course) for a supreme intelligence to take from existing matter and with a little guidance here and there to begin the birth of this solar system so that it's evolved to what it is at present, life included.
Amused

Lowell, MA

#72 Jan 23, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
...
Second, this statement of your's is quite twisted in context. "Very few of us (atheists is your meaning here as children) avoided religious influences as children. Most of us (atheists since childhood years is your meaning here) were raised in one religion or another. I was raided catholic. Mass every Sunday. I was even an altar boy, so I pretty much went to mass every day of the week for several years." It's a bit twisted to state as a atheist in childhood you also believed in a God as a child. Seems you're a bit confused here.
....
Please tell me English is not your first language. You obviously cannot parse simple sentences.Either that, or the lengths to which you go to torture the text to mean something other than the plain meaning is telling evidence of how intellectually dishonest you really are. I guess once you've invented an invisible man in the sky, smaller lies seem trivial.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#73 Jan 23, 2014
TheJackelantern wrote:
<quoted text>
Clearly you didn't read the article.. It's irrelevant if the concept is in the thoughts of someone as this is about the principle of the concept in itself.. Hence you clearly avoided dealing with the questions and made an appeal to the delusional thinking of millions and billions of people.. So let me extract this for you in 3 simple questions while understanding that Existence itself is defined as the totality and essence of all that exists (Universal Set of All Sets). Thus It’s every rule, force to cause, process, function, state of being, person, place, object, substance, or thing.. It is causality, the totality of power, information, purpose, meaning, and what is, was, or what will ever become. It is the Origin of everything :
Q1: What is GOD without existence?
<quoted text>
Q2: If Existence is GOD, then what of existence is not?
<quoted text>
Q3: If Existence is not GOD, then what of existence is?
<quoted text>
Pretty simple deductive logic with a logical conclusion breaking down the concept of GOD to either being literally moot or entirely non-existent altogether. Needless to say this was pretty destructive to what little faith I had left in GOD. I would even argue further to say it is even more ridiculous for one part of existence to worship another part of itself as “GOD” as such would be the ultimate case of delusional Narcissism. I could not reconcile as the whole concept of GOD had thus become logically moot and nonsensical.
Furthermore, you can feel free to explain, if you disagree, our origins, essence of being, why we are here, how we got here, consciousness, or causality without Existence.. If you can do that, I would be impressed. Essentially the entire concept of GOD is utter nonsense. So you or anyone worshiping anything at all as a GOD is essentially worshiping another part of existence, or imagined concept of existence itself. Me and you are literally existence itself having this discussion with itself as we are both in and of existence..
What was written has no bearing on one's personal opinion unless one's personal opinions find relevance in the article. You find relevance with the author because like he, you don't have a belief in a supreme being. Therefore though the article is informative of his reflections and opinions, the article is as biased and prejudiced as an article promoting the existence of a supreme being. Understand? The theory of a supreme intelligence can neither be proved or disproved. It's a theory and nothing more.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#74 Jan 23, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
That's some twisted logic. To be a theist one has to mentally acknowledge to oneself by rational logic that is how they believe. Like wise, to be an atheist takes the same very process of logical and rational thought.
Thus any person child to adult(adults obviously would be few in this category) who has never given a logical thought as to whether a supreme being exists or doesn't exist wouldn't fit into either category. Understand?
Consider it this way. For one to claim they are an atheist, it means they have given some form of thought to the matter if a supreme being exists or doesn't exist in order to arrive at a decision. It works the same for theists. So those who have never considered the matter can't be fit into either category.
Until there is an Dahfaunulist, there will never be an Adahfaunulist. In fact when that first Dahfaunulist exists, all others who are not Dahfaunulist will by default be Adahfaunulist. Those who review and reject the Dahfaunulist as pure idiocy will be non-believers. And having not become Dahfaunulists, they remain Adahfaunulists too.

The letter "a" in atheist, as with several other words means not. And not being a theist one is by default an atheist.

A child being indoctrinated at an early age will be theist without ever having consider the question of belief, and whether it be rational or even belief worthy. The child who is not indoctrinated is atheist, and has always been.

BTW: I am just amazed that you'd think you know who I am, and it couldn't possibly matter what I know of myself and other atheist and non-believers. We don't fit into the mold that your backwoods uneducated pastor has poured, and claimed that we would all fit in. Your education needs some tweaking.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#75 Jan 23, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
lol.....fricking please. I'm a threat to your kids? lol....you're the biggest threat to your kids as their parent that will ever be near to them as much as you are around them. You may or may not have already damaged their mentality with or with out purpose as your post here proves your very, very mentally malevolent. You have proved in threatening me with violence you are closer to hurting people be it for reason or no reason. You have proved those you are around constantly stand in jeopardy of your malevolent mental state they know nothing of. When you verbally threaten someone with physical violence you have proved the words humanity and empathy are soundless words for you but to be used when it seems proper for you to use them.
I was having a discussion. I made no threat to you. You decided a need to play tough guy was necessary for some twisted reasoning known to just you. You turned to a state of mental malevolence by your own choosing. You need a chill pill dude, just saying.
Learn to read you pitiful dumbfuck. You decided to put me in a situation where you would with (no input from myself) make me the agressor .... and I responded that while it's not me, there are instances where I would resort to violence.

Remember >>>" I do not sucker punch anyone. Violence is not second nature to me, and there is only one reason that I can imagine that I would hurt someone. >>>>You would have already proven <<<<< yourself to be a threat to my children ..."

Since: Nov 12

Salem, MA

#76 Jan 23, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
What was written has no bearing on one's personal opinion unless one's personal opinions find relevance in the article. You find relevance with the author because like he, you don't have a belief in a supreme being. Therefore though the article is informative of his reflections and opinions, the article is as biased and prejudiced as an article promoting the existence of a supreme being. Understand? The theory of a supreme intelligence can neither be proved or disproved. It's a theory and nothing more.
I don't think you understand that it does. It in fact involves the opinion paradox to where it is equally stated when looking at the to far extremes either all or nothing.. In another analogy you can look at this as a giant soccer field with two goals on each end of the field. These goals are the furthest extremes on either end of the field. On the far left you have Atheism (no gods), and the far right you have Pantheism (Existence and everything of is God). This has nothing to do with bias or prejudice, this is stating the far extremes to which by definition is all or nothing. It is both an opinion Paradox and an Existential Paradox. Thus all the rest of the players on the field are simply just kicking the ball around while ignoring the goals on either end of the field as if they don't exist. It's irrelevant if you believe there is some supreme intelligent being out there in and of existence because this doesn't even address that question . Hence it can even assume for argument sake there is, and it will still be subject to the Paradox noted.

And this argument of yours is an avoidance of having to address the questions presented to which directly show why the concept of God is at best moot. The only difference between an Atheist and a Pantheist is that an Atheist does not consider Existence "God".. And no offense, but the Pantheist GOD is higher on the totem-pole than any other concept of GOD..Just answering those questions is more than enough to demonstrate that.

Since: Nov 12

Salem, MA

#77 Jan 23, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I took the above as it hits a point of my own thinking. Actually it hits the point of many who are changing the traditional way this intelligence is concerned and how things came to be.
It is a new theory that this intelligence didn't make everything from nothing, but as humans have done it, it used existing material to create other things to establish a patter for evolution to evolve from be it non-life forms and than life forms.
Example. Have you ever had an aquarium? It's the best example I can think of for an intelligence creating things from existing material. I bought a tank several years ago. I put rocks in the bottom, the seedling of plants in those rocks and affixed a device to supply constant oxygen to the water. I even added another device to cause the water to move about. I than put life in the tank to swim in it. The tank over several years has evolved to the point where I can go several days if I wish without adding food because of the tank supplying needed nutriments for the fish from algae, the plants and the crap from the fish they actually eat again. I took from existing materials and began a world and except for me maintaining it from time to time, it's almost self sufficient in existing on it's own evolution process.
So as cockeyed as it sounds, I think it's well possible(not provable of course) for a supreme intelligence to take from existing matter and with a little guidance here and there to begin the birth of this solar system so that it's evolved to what it is at present, life included.
The article I presented and the arguments I presented do not address whether or not there was intelligence involved in lets say in the instant of the Big Bang..There is no evidence for it, but there is no assertion to say it's impossible.. My argument has nothing to do with this unless you attempt to suggest some being is the origin of everything when in fact that would actually be Existence itself. However, as you noted, intelligence can be and is a part of causality even when itself is a product of causality. All things with cause are emergent properties of existence itself, or product of evolution on a grand scale.. This to which clearly includes both intelligent and non-intelligent influences and processes. You can believe whatever which you think makes a solar system and it wouldn't really have any bearing on the argument I presented.. And I simply would not worship another part of existence as a GOD because it is nonsensical for existence to worship another part of itself as such. Hence, it is essentially pointless..And any being that thinks itself as a GOD has severe delusions of Grandeur, and a severe case of Narcissism... Again just answering those 3 simple questions puts that all into perspective.

Since: Nov 12

Salem, MA

#78 Jan 23, 2014
Btw, it really sucks trying to type this out on the phone..:/ This site needs an edit option.. However I feel the need to correct the following :
I don't think you understand that it does. It in fact involves the opinion paradox to where it is equally stated when looking at the to far extremes either all or nothing..
Should read as:

I don't think you understand that it does. It in fact involves the opinion paradox to where it is equally stated that when looking at the two far extremes, it is either all or nothing..

Since: Nov 12

Salem, MA

#79 Jan 23, 2014
Gotta love how the religious people will use the judging system like they do on youtube :).. You know you hit the nerve when they can't intellectually engage or deal with, in this case, simple questions. O.o

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#80 Jan 23, 2014
Christianity preys on the innocent. If Christian fear-mongering were directed solely at adults, it would be bad enough, but Christians routinely terrorize helpless children through grisly depictions of the endless horrors and suffering they'll be subjected to if they don’t live good Christian lives. Christianity has darkened the early years of generation after generation of children, who have lived in terror of dying while in mortal sin and going to endless torment as a result. All of these children were trusting of adults, and they did not have the ability to analyze what they were being told; they were simply helpless victims, who, ironically, victimized following generations in the same manner that they themselves had been victimized. The nearly 2000 years of Christian terrorizing of children ranks as one of its greatest crimes. And it’s one that continues to this dayhttp://www.seesharppress.co m/20reasons.html#numbertwenty.

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#81 Jan 23, 2014

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 min DanFromSmithville 34,466
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 51 min ChristineM 14,866
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr ChristineM 255,503
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 1 hr ChristineM 20,053
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 5 hr emperorjohn 4,468
News Your atheism isn&#x27;t going to keep your... (Apr '14) 6 hr emperorjohn 168
News Are There Atheists in the Foxholes? 6 hr emperorjohn 54
More from around the web