patrick.net

Dan8267 says

Great Straw Man argument, Hitler. Please expand on it.

I'm impressed that you didn't argue my point that there are millions of religious people with more intelligence and integrity than you.

Maybe you aren't as imbalanced as I thought after all.

Honestly, I wouldn't give a shit what silly things people want to make murals out of as long as they'd stop trying to teach my kids that there's some kind of 'controversy' about how life came to be.

Kevin says

marcus says

Dan8267 says

I don't get an ego boost from pointing out the follies and dangers of religion or disproving the existence of a god or showing how the religious myths are copies of older pagan myths. I do it because it is important to stop the irrationality that allows assholes like Rick Perry and Rick Santorum

Maybe we should just kill all of the religious. You would take out the Rick Perry and Santorum types,...I guess the millions of religious people with more character, intelligence, integrity and wisdom than you would just be collateral damage.

Only a religious person would think that the solution to irrational religion is to kill the people who are religious.

Dan is what I consider very religious in his zeal for atheism, and in his belief (he would say proof, haha), that we would be better off with zero religion and with nobody having any of what is often referred to as spirituality.

How does a person get to where they have an ego such that they would say that if mankind is really going to benefit and move forward, they should have his beliefs? I have only met a couple of Christians in my life that are THAT RELIGIOUS.

But I assumed it was obvious that I was being facetious, with the comment about killing the religious. And one would have to have seen the history of my religious arguments with Dan to get my point.

Actually I don't think that Dan would even be close to advocating such a thing, so it isn't really a straw man.

But in my opinion (or by my definition) Dan is as religious, in the negative sense of the word, as a person can be.

What is religious tolerance anyway? Is it enough just to say that you don't advocate killing everyone in a certain group?

If someone makes an argument (that they call a proof) that religion of any kind is evil, is that tolerance ?

I thought tolerance (in the social context) means more of a "live and let live," I'm not going to judge you based on your race, or your sexual orientation or your religious beliefs etc.

marcus says

Dan is what I consider very religious in his zeal for atheism,

1. There is nothing wrong with "zeal" for atheism any more than there is anything wrong with "zeal" for mathematics, history, or Opera.

2. Unlike religion, atheism hasn't been used as the justification for enslavement, rape, and murder of outsiders or for genocide.

3. There are plenty of damn good reasons to abandon religious beliefs.

marcus says

How does a person get to where they have an ego such that they would say that if mankind is really going to benefit and move forward, they should have his beliefs?

I believe the world is round. If you disagree with this belief, you are wrong. My beliefs are faith, they are knowledge. So this isn't about ego, except for you.

I believe that the enormous amount of pollution that we are putting in the atmosphere is causing climate change that may have many dire consequences. If you disagree with this belief, you are wrong and you are endangering our species survival. The real world impact of climate change can result in the whole of Britain being underwater and the British using their nuclear arsenal to secure other lands. That's damn serious shit.

Yet, it's one of my "beliefs". Marcus, you need to stop using the word belief because you are confusing "faith-based doctrine" with "verifiable knowledge". The two things are completely different.

When I say that religion has caused countless atrocities throughout history, this "belief" is readily verifiable.

marcus says

Actually I don't think that Dan would even be close to advocating such a thing, so it isn't really a straw man.

Um, actually it still is a Straw Man argument. Only it's a disingenuous one, which most Straw Man arguments are.

marcus says

But in my opinion (or by my definition) Dan is as religious, in the negative sense of the word, as a person can be.

And your welcome to that opinion. In my opinion, you are simply jealous of my intellect and your fragile ego cause you to be obsessed with fighting everything I say even when you know it's right. Instead of learning from me, which a more mature person would do, you throw little tantrums.

And the one time, I gave yo the benefit of a doubt, you immediately revert back to a child.

marcus says

I thought tolerance (in the social context) means more of a "live and let live," I'm not going to judge you based on your race, or your sexual orientation or your religious beliefs etc.

Some things should be tolerated and others things shouldn't be. If you have a problem with gays, you should be tolerant. Better yet, you should not have a problem with gays at all, in which case you aren't tolerating anything. To tolerate X implies that X pisses you off. As gay people don't piss me off, I'm not tolerating them. However, I doubt you'll be able to understand this distinction and you'll do your best to deliberately misinterpret it.

However, other things shouldn't be tolerated. The belief that black men who are intimate with white women should be lynched, obviously should not be tolerated. The idea that a women who has been raped should be stoned to death to restore family honor should not be tolerated. Even though that belief is a religious one. Yes, religious beliefs should not be tolerated when they directly cause death and destruction.

You don't get a "get out of jail free" card simply because your crime was motivated by religion.

In the words of Bill Maher:

"Atheism is a religion like Abstinence is a sex position".

Saying that you require evidence of something in order to accept it is not a religion; it's exactly the opposite of that.

Dan8267 says

When I say that religion has caused countless atrocities throughout history, this "belief" is readily verifiable.

I'm not calling that a belief.

What I am calling a belief is your inference from this that therefore religion is evil. Sounds like so much emotion to me. You disregard that good comes from religion too.

Humans have done all of the evil things you ascribe to religion, and so much more. Why don't you condemn humans as evil and not worthy of existing?

I know why. Because you are a human and therefore you see a positive side to humanity.

Kevin says

Saying that you require evidence of something in order to accept it is not a religion; it's exactly the opposite of that.

But when the extremist type atheist proselytize about the evil of religion, and take it to an irrational emotional and arrogant place, they are in my view being religious about it.

They are implicitly putting their beliefs above others in much the way that one religion puts theirs above other as the one true path. The parallels are obvious.

I do agree that religion can sometimes be dangerous or even evil. And in my view Dan's religion falls in to both categories.

Dan8267 says

I've seen what Christians do to outsiders when they get control of the government. Remember Germany, 1930s?

Thank you for discrediting yourself with that statement.

Dan8267 says

If we extreme atheists manage to get the masses to abandon all superstitious beliefs, then we succeed in taking away one tool from the toolbox used by evil

Dan, what is "evil"? That sounds like a superstitious belief.

In nature, the powerful dominate the weak. That's how evolution works. Survival of the fittest. That's not evil, that's nature.

marcus says

I do agree that religion can sometimes be dangerous or even evil. And in my view Dan's religion falls in to both categories.

Agree. Any ideology can be dangerous if its adherents belive it is SO GOOD that it must be forced on the unwilling. Dan has gone on the record saying force should be used to advance his ideology for the "betterment" of the human race. That's just as fanatical as the Crusaders of old or the present day Jihadists.

He says he doesn't like it when Bush starts a war to (supposedly) spread Christianity to the Islamic world, but he says we must defintely spread Atheism to the the Islamic world; by force if necessary.

Justice MUST be poured out...as long as it's Dan's version of justice.

Evil MUST be destroyed...as long as it's Dan's version of evil.

Dan is just as much a "true believer" in his ideology as any religious fanatic.

The demons that Dan wishes to slay are staring at him in the mirror!

Dan8267 says

In my opinion, you are simply jealous of my intellect and your fragile ego cause you to be obsessed with fighting everything I say even when you know it's right. Instead of learning from me, which a more mature person would do, you throw little tantrums.

Yes, this sounds like someone who knows they are right (imagine a sarcasm font - I add this since Dan seems to miss it when I'm kidding ).

Kevin says

In the words of Bill Maher:

"Atheism is a religion like Abstinence is a sex position".

Saying that you require evidence of something in order to accept it is not a religion; it's exactly the opposite of that.

I agree that atheism isn't a religion, but it is protected by the First Amendment as that amendment protects us from being forced to accept any religion and it protects our rights to establish our own moral codes irrespective of religion. Unless you take a broad interpretation of the First Amendment, it is worthless for protecting our liberty in the modern world.

marcus says

Humans have done all of the evil things you ascribe to religion, and so much more. Why don't you condemn humans as evil and not worthy of existing?

The amount of good and evil that humans do depends largely on the culture in which they live. Some aspects of culture promote acts of evil and others promote acts of good. Religion empirical has promoted evil far more than good.

You can't change human nature, but you can change culture. Is there anyone here who honestly would argue that the culture of Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan is better than the culture of Britain or the United States when it comes to human rights especially the rights of women? Is there anyone here who would argue that the culture of America in the 1950s was better than today's culture in terms of equal rights for all people regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation?

Cultures can and do change. And that's a good thing.

wthrfrk80 says

Thank you for discrediting yourself with that statement.

Awesome analysis. Sort of like the following function:

return null;

wthrfrk80 says

Dan, what is "evil"? That sounds like a superstitious belief.

Only if you personify evil. I prefer a mathematical model.

wthrfrk80 says

In nature, the powerful dominate the weak. That's how evolution works. Survival of the fittest.

Just because that's how nature works doesn't mean that's how society should work. If we accepted the principle of "survival of the fittest" as the basis of society, there could not be any laws. Laws protect the weak from the strong. That is the whole purpose of law.

Do you honestly believe that our government should be based on survival of the fittest? Hell, we don't even apply that philosophy to banks.

wthrfrk80 says

Dan has gone on the record saying force should be used to advance his ideology for the "betterment" of the human race.

Quote please. Otherwise, you are making up bullshit.

My philosophy is that religion is tolerated to the degree that it is tolerant. Any religion that is incompatible with the Bill of Rights and other human and civil rights cannot be protected as doing so destroys the rights of others.

For example, religion does not give people the right to commit murder even if they call it a human sacrifice. Nor does religion give people the right to enslave another person despite the fact that the Bible says this is OK. Nor does religion give people the right to ban books they don't like or prevent interracial or intrasexual marriages.

Do any of you disagree with the above restrictions on religion? If so, have the balls to argue against them.

Any religion that insists on replacing our secular republic with a theocracy is utterly incompatible with the Constitution and the very basis of modern Western civilization. Such a religion cannot be protected while it tears apart the republic.

Nevertheless, this position I have just described does not come close to "Dan has gone on the record saying force should be used to advance his ideology for the "betterment" of the human race." Either you have completely misinterpreted everything I have said or you are deliberately misrepresenting my arguments.

wthrfrk80 says

He says he doesn't like it when Bush starts a war to (supposedly) spread Christianity to the Islamic world, but he says we must defintely spread Atheism to the the Islamic world; by force if necessary.

wthrfrk80, you are worst than a Super PAC. Are you

a. completely delusional?
b. a pathological liar?

I have never, ever said or implied in any way, shape, or form that a single person should be killed to promote Atheism. I am offended by that false and despicable accusation. And if you understood anything even remotely about my philosophy, you would know that the use of violence to force any idea on a person is antithetical to everything I believe.

What I have said is that military force is justifiable to prevent the slaughter of civilians and ethnic cleansing. To misinterpret this statement as implying that people should be slaughtered if they don't accept atheism is inexcusable.

But I guess one would expect such a thing from a religious person. It is how superstitious people have behaved throughout history. And that behavior demonstrates why we need to reject religion. The posts on this thread have clearly shown that religion prevents rational discussion. And we all know the dangers of irrationality in the modern age.

marcus says

Yes, this sounds like someone who knows they are right (imagine a sarcasm font - I add this since Dan seems to miss it when I'm kidding ).

If you want me to treat you like an adult, start acting like one. I was willing to bury the hatchet, but you decided to continue your tantrums.

thomas.wong1986 says

James Burke Connections

Btw, that's a great series.

Dan8267 says

Quote please. Otherwise, you are making up bullshit.

Here you go:

Dan8267 says

Some things should be tolerated and others things shouldn't be

Dan8267 says

I'd go to war over this issue since I've seen what Christians do to outsiders when they get control of the government.

Dan8267 says

then I say let's burn every Bible in the country

Dan8267 says

If we extreme atheists manage to get the masses to abandon all superstitious beliefs, then we succeed in taking away one tool from the toolbox used by evil. Yes, it's only one tool, but it's a damn important and often used tool. Eliminating that tool would greatly improve the condition of the world.

Dan8267 says

wthrfrk80 says

So you're going on the record as saying it's ok to attack a culture? That's a very authoritarian statement.
So be it. In Saudi Arabia women are stoned to death in honor killings because of the culture. I'll gladly go on record as saying that culture and others are bad and should end.

Dan, your extremism and intolerance is on display for everyone to see.

No one here is advocating a Theocracy in the USA. You are arguing against a straw man.

Your attempt to portray all religion as inherently evil shows your willful ignorance of facts that show the contrary.

And sorry, Hitler's ideology was not Christianity, it was German Nationalism that emphasized the supposed racial superiority of the Aryan race. Nice try. Christians such as Deitrich Bonhoeffer were vocally opposed to Hitler. And many of them got whacked because of it.

Atheist regimes are capable of the same atrocities of religous regimes, from the Reign of Terror to the Soviet Union to Communist China. Those are the facts. Your willful ignorance of those facts show you are just as irrational as any religious fanatic.

I rest my case. I have no more to say.

wthrfrk80 says

I rest my case. I have no more to say.

Thank god.

wthrfrk80 says

Any ideology can be dangerous if its adherents belive it is SO GOOD that it must be forced on the unwilling. Dan has gone on the record saying force should be used to advance his ideology for the "betterment" of the human race. That's just as fanatical as the Crusaders of old or the present day Jihadists.

Dan8267 says

Quote please. Otherwise, you are making up bullshit.

wthrfrk80 says

Here you go:
Dan8267 says
Some things should be tolerated and others things shouldn't be

The full quote, in context, of what I said was

Some things should be tolerated and others things shouldn't be. If you have a problem with gays, you should be tolerant. Better yet, you should not have a problem with gays at all, in which case you aren't tolerating anything. To tolerate X implies that X pisses you off. As gay people don't piss me off, I'm not tolerating them. However, I doubt you'll be able to understand this distinction and you'll do your best to deliberately misinterpret it.

However, other things shouldn't be tolerated. The belief that black men who are intimate with white women should be lynched, obviously should not be tolerated. The idea that a women who has been raped should be stoned to death to restore family honor should not be tolerated. Even though that belief is a religious one. Yes, religious beliefs should not be tolerated when they directly cause death and destruction.

You don't get a "get out of jail free" card simply because your crime was motivated by religion.

Therefore, wthrfrk80 is stating that because I believe that society shouldn't tolerate lynching black men or stoning women, that I am advocating a religious war. Yep, that makes total sense.

Give me some time and I'll look over his other false accusations. Tracing through all his bullshit takes time.

wthrfrk80 says

Dan8267 says
I'd go to war over this issue since I've seen what Christians do to outsiders when they get control of the government.

Full Quote:

Freedom of religion means freedom from religion. If you can't say no, you're not free. Atheism is most certainly protected by the First Amendment. And if our rights to not have religion forced down our throats isn't respected, then we won't respect your right to worship.

Tolerance is a two-way street and if atheists are protected on the same level as Christians, then I say let's burn every Bible in the country. I'd go to war over this issue since I've seen what Christians do to outsiders when they get control of the government. Remember Germany, 1930s?

Yes, I would go to war to prevent America from being taken over by neo-Nazis intent on eradicating anyone who isn't a Christian. That would be worth fighting for.

And if I had to choose between a world in which every Bible is burned and one in which you had to convert to to Christianity on pain of death like in the Middle Ages, then I'd choose the former as the far lesser of the two evils.

There is a huge difference between being willing to fight a defensive war to prevent the establishment of a tyrannical theocracy in America and proposing a preemptive war to eliminate all religious people. But I guess wthrfrk80 is incapable of seeing this difference.

wthrfrk80 says

Dan8267 says

If we extreme atheists manage to get the masses to abandon all superstitious beliefs, then we succeed in taking away one tool from the toolbox used by evil. Yes, it's only one tool, but it's a damn important and often used tool. Eliminating that tool would greatly improve the condition of the world.

Full Quote

Trust me. I don't get an ego boost from pointing out the follies and dangers of religion or disproving the existence of a god or showing how the religious myths are copies of older pagan myths. I do it because it is important to stop the irrationality that allows assholes like Rick Perry and Rick Santorum from getting elected and passing evil agendas that compromise life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If we extreme atheists manage to get the masses to abandon all superstitious beliefs, then we succeed in taking away one tool from the toolbox used by evil. Yes, it's only one tool, but it's a damn important and often used tool. Eliminating that tool would greatly improve the condition of the world.

Does anyone deny that politicians use religion as a tool for passing evil policies and waging unjust wars?

I stand by my statement: Superstition is one of the tools used by politicians to get the masses to embrace evil policies and unjust wars.

How wthrfrk80 interprets this as waging a Crusade or Jihad -- both terms mean Holy War or the killing of non-believers -- is beyond reason.

Dan8267 says

If you want me to treat you like an adult, start acting like one. I was willing to bury the hatchet, but you decided to continue your tantrums.

Your being willing to bury the hatched was the response to a totally facetious remark on my part, when you knew you were wrong. I never stopped being certain that you were wrong. And you knew that. But that was a different thread, and a silly argument about semantics.

Instead of talking about my tantrums, why don't you just say "I know you are but what am I." For all of the times that I pointed out your childishness.

What's my most tantrum like remark in this thread? If you are going to consider my use of the word arrogant or ego or extremist in describing you or your position, as a "tantrum" I think that hardly makes sense. You only prove me right with this kind of thing:

Dan8267 says

Your perception of me does not reflect reality. Nor could your mind comprehend my thoughts. It's best you simply accept that you are incapable of understanding me as I can't dumb down me enough for you to understand.

or this:

Dan8267 says

In my opinion, you are simply jealous of my intellect and your fragile ego cause you to be obsessed with fighting everything I say even when you know it's right. Instead of learning from me, which a more mature person would do, you throw little tantrums.

Truth is you probably know you're wrong here too. I still think you might be an alter ego of Shrek, trying to associate liberals with the extreme and hateful religious type of atheism.

The usual intelligent atheist just doesn't believe in a deity, but would usually not be bothered in the slightest by that banner.

You either are Shrek or very much like him. You seem to think asserting your superiority or my inferiority is a substitute for a reasonable argument. I assure you that anyone reading it only sees it as pathetic.

All I am doing is looking at both sides of the issue before forming an opinion, something you or the character you play seems incapable of.

wthrfrk80 says

Dan8267 says

wthrfrk80 says

So you're going on the record as saying it's ok to attack a culture? That's a very authoritarian statement.

So be it. In Saudi Arabia women are stoned to death in honor killings because of the culture. I'll gladly go on record as saying that culture and others are bad and should end.

Of course the word "attack" in the phrase "attack a culture" does not imply military force as there are many ways to attack a culture: reason, counter-culture, media, etc. And the phrase is wthrfrk80's, not mine.

What I say is that a culture which stones women to death for being raped should be ended. I stand by that statement. In fact, I'd even go as far as to say that the United Nation's peace keeping forces should be used to prevent these women in Saudi Arabia from being stoned to death. Yes, that's military force, but it is justified to defend the lives of the innocent. I fail to see why wthrfrk80 has a problem with preventing rape victims from being stoned to death.

When you are playing a character instead of being yourself, it's easy to lose track of your position.

You started out associating all Christians in a community with alleged death threats from a few. When this was pointed out.

marcus says

I wonder what percentage of the Christians in the community sent death threats or approved of them ?

You're answer:

Dan8267 says

Sent: definitely a small percentage of the community.
Approved: definitely a large percentage of the community based on the community's treatment towards the girl.

So you are saying that the local Christian community approved of the death threats, because they thought her trying to have the banner taken down is wrong? Or because they thought she was being jerk for making a fuss about it.

(but now you try to moderate your position talking about condemning the worst type of fundamentalist ignorance - that you know EVERYONE AGREES WITH)

I believe that if the girl (subject of this thread) was a healthy atheist (rather than the arrogant and hateful kind) she wouldn't have worried about the beliefs of the majority of the school and she would have tried to relate to the good qualities of the people. As I said earlier.

marcus says

If I was going to fight it, in her shoes, I would have just brought the idea up at the student council, or some other group venue, and see if I could get some support for the idea of taking it down. IF there was a lot of strong objection, then I would back down. IT's not that big of a deal, and besides, it's a positive message.

and...

marcus says

Let the people have their banner with the positive message that's slightly religious in a general way. You can be their friend even if they are different than you. But because they are very much in the majority, yeah, you can either tolerate their behavior that you don't agree with, or you can take a stand that will turn them off to you.

The people's "behavior" I referred to is really just beliefs, that have zero impact on her.

marcus says

Your being willing to bury the hatched was the response to a totally facetious remark on my part

Ironically, your facetious remark, if it were taken non-facetiously, would be the only mature thing you've ever said on this site. The only mistake I made was in thinking that you might be capable of such maturity. I fully admit that I was wrong about that. Yes, I was wrong. So very, very wrong.

marcus says

I never stopped being certain that you were wrong.

And that is your problem.

marcus says

But that was a different thread, and a silly argument about semantics.

So you started an argument on semantics and kept it up just for spite? How mature.

marcus says

I still think you might be an alter ego of Shrek, trying to associate liberals with the extreme and hateful religious type of type of atheism.

Then it comes down to this. One and only one of the following statements is true.

a. I am Shrek using a second account.
b. Marcus is full of shit and has always been.

Of course, we won't know the truth until Patrick implements the feature that finds "aliases" based on IP addresses used in postings. Hmmm, anyone want to take bets? I'll give 2:1 odds that I am not Shrek. Any takers?

Of course, anyone with even half a brain would know that I'm not Shrek as I meticulously and logically dismantle his arguments with the same ease as I do Marcus. Of course, I don't claim that Marcus and Shrek are the same person. They are both living in delusions that have nothing to do with reality, but that doesn’t make them the same person. As bad as Shrek is, at least he's not as immature and spiteful as Marcus -- and that's saying a lot given all the things that Shrek has said about Obama and liberals.

But Marcus and Shrek prove that there are idiots on both the left and the right. And both see any slight disagreement as being a polar opposite that must be destroyed.

marcus says

Truth is you probably know you're wrong here too.

Marcus, you fool, if you haven't learned anything else from our conversations, you should have learned at least this. A person like me is never wrong for very long because once someone else shows a good, rational reason why one of our beliefs is incorrect, we immediately reject our old idea and embrace the new one. But I suppose someone of your personality type can't understand this. You are ego-driven and I am driven by rational thought.

To you, it's all about who's right. To me, it's not even about what's right. It's about how you arrive at the conclusion. The process, not the conclusion, is what matters. You will never understand this, and that is what makes you intellectually inferior. Well, that and you refuse to learn from others when they graciously offer to share their understanding with you.

marcus says

I assure you that anyone reading it only sees it as pathetic.

I guess you don't take facts into consideration. Your assurances are worthless.

marcus says

All I am doing is looking at both sides of the issue before forming an opinion, something you or the character you play seems incapable of.

If you were as open-minded as I am, you would realize that there are almost always more than two sides of an issue. The possibility of only two sides implies a one-dimensional universe, which certainly is in keeping with your left vs. right mentality.

Let's not forget that the death threats may be fiction.

Without the death threats, all we, the media and everyone see is an antisocial girls who makes a big deal out of nothing and who is is probably trying to impress her father or something.

marcus says

So you are saying that the local Christian community approved of the death threats,

Based on the article, it certainly seems the community was ok with the threats. Whether or not they believed the threats would be carried out is another story, but they certainly didn't denounce the threats against a 16-year-old girl or any of the other bad treatment.

And based on your statements below, it seems you are just as heartless.

I believe that if the girl (subject of this thread) was a healthy atheist (rather than the arrogant and hateful kind) she wouldn't have worried about the beliefs of the majority of the school and she would have tried to relate to the good qualities of the people.

To accuse this girl of being arrogant or hateful is a ridiculous and ironically hateful. All this girl did was to ask the school to stop doing something that is blatantly illegal.

No matter how you try to spin this, the girl was right and those that ridiculed her or made death threats against her are wrong: both morally and legally.

marcus says

Without the death threats

Well, that's a big fucking change Marcus. Christ, Marcus, do you have children? If someone made a death threat against your daughter and you didn't know whether it was just some asshole blowing steam or a crazy zealot who intended to go ahead with it, wouldn't you be damn concerned?

If someone made a death threat against my daughter, I'm pretty sure that they'd find themselves on the receiving end of my boot.

Look I grew up with Catholics and Christians. They can be brutal sometimes no doubt. I've seen people put through "hell" for what they consider "perversion". They go to church then the next day are merciless with their teasing of those that don't "fit in". Now the people that "get" all this religious bullshit or know its bullshit. Have sympathy for the people picked on. However they don't do one fucking thing to get rid of the "religious bullshit". So "religous bullshit" is a standard used to keep people in line. Paying there bills. Not giving the people "in charge" any trouble. The people that don't "fit in" are causuaties in all of this. They consider that "tough shit". Because once again in order to make "religion" work. You have to have a "bad guy". So to speak. The rich are "bad guys" however they are left till the "bitter end". Where "God" gets them. The rest? Well if they are dumb enough to fight back. Well they have their fight. While the rich with half a brain just let them wait for the apocolypse. Letting them be good little Christians turning the other cheek. Taking their cloak, pants and underwear. With the stupid little Christians just happy as hell because well the rich will get theirs in the end. Take a tip from the rich. Leave them the fuck alone and they go away. One thing you'll notice from that book. Other religions, "perverts" get theirs right now. Read the book. You'll see he fucks up everyone with a bad religion. He even stones perverts. The GD rich he leaves alone till the end. Why? It's who had the "book" printed. It wasn't Anton Levey. It was the people that wanted to be left alone while they stole every fucking thing they could find. I can see I'll never see anyone with much sense about this. Why? Because people love to be in their division. Which they are a part of in the first place, its cozy. They love a good fight. To some its better than being rich. The sad part watching their, wheels spinning, taking up their life. It's sort of a distraction from their reality. A form of entertainment. The funniest part is watching the well meaning non-Christians trying to talk "sense into the Christians. While the Christians are pretty sure the non-christians are in league with the devil.

The Christians of course at the same time are trying to talk their sense into the non-christians. Yes folks it can go on forever. At least till the end when nothing fucking happens and the rich enjoy a marvelous life. Courtesey of the very, very rich that were smart enough to print the book in the first place. To keep everyone away from them their familes and their stuff. While the rest work for some kind of cause or religion or philosophy not giving up until the bitter end. Each side, arguing, fighting trying their best to get the other side out of their delusion. Because thats what a nice person does. All in the meanwhile they are busy carting off everything you have or should have.

Dan8267 says

b. Marcus is full of shit and has always been.

C'mon, don't insult other users. I don't want to have to jail anyone.

Dan8267 says

Hmmm, anyone want to take bets? I'll give 2:1 odds that I am not Shrek. Any takers?

I will say right now you are not Shrek, based on IP addresses.

Jessica Alquist is getting a $40k scholarship thanks to various Atheist groups.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/20/rhode-island-teen-who-fought-against-prayer-banner-gets-scholarship-from/?test=latestnews

Enjoy the comments section, after all, it is Fox News.

C'mon, don't insult other users.

I try, but some people just keep begging to be put down.

thunderlips11 says

Jessica Alquist is getting a $40k scholarship thanks to various Atheist groups.

Good for her.

This is a little off yet to me its good for a laugh.

Britain and France demanded Syrian President Bashar al-Assad cease attacks against the besieged opposition stronghold of Homs to allow three journalists to receive medical care.

How many times have we read something like that? Think about it. We are outraged of course. Because well its newspeople folks. The ones that bring us the stark truth every single day of the week. Now they are under attack from the people that CENSOr and lie. British and french journalists always get lost and captured for some reason. Cause if a Journalist gets hurt whoah fuck. If they did get another gov't installed. They would chuckle at all the stupid people that actually believe that they had won their revolt. Take a look at the Democracy in Iraq and Afganistan. It's a fucking joke. You don't let countries like that go after all the effort gone to. For the purpose you went after them in the first place. If you think otherwise. You really believe in Jesus way to much. Or you have the ideaolgy of a 12 year old.

You've got your women, childern. Unspeakble acts. God do somethings. Throw in your journalists abused or cornered. Let see what else. Oh a target or two to outrage a country (thats if it really gets bad). Involve some Nato countries an outrage or two. Just so they can get the right puppet back in there. If you don't think Assad is their buddy. Think again. Mollamars didn't have a friend in the world. Ole Assad has the *trifecta of nuclear nonsense on his side. Deal is how to help him out. In a genuine revolt. Of large proportions. If hes been dead well fuck. What would Jesus do?

So Operation HARD PUPPET continues.

They tried it in Egypt folks you saw. They now have just about every ministry building. Even showing old film of the parliment meetings. They are huddled in a bunker just praying the outraged Egyptian people don't get ahold of them.

Call that one Operation Fucked Puppet.

*Nuclear trifecta exlained: A group of counties that have never gone to war with each other even before the "stink bomb" was invented. Nations that claim to be the "richest" on earth. Each country has aligned with it as many naive nations it can bullshit. Pliable bullshitted nations sometimes in "Zone" near largest trifecta bullshitter (eastern europe, duh)One example. Trifecta consists of 3 countries that have robbed the earth blind.

I get tired of this country setting up its own serve to invade another country. Question on CNN. Why isn't the world coming to help Syria. When setting up a puppet one has to be clever. If not even with their own people. Especially when they have one of the most incredible puppets ever in show. (I mean guys if you believe that one up there now in a country that has never fucking elected minority even to govenor. Your really gullible and lost in life. It just ain't natural.) Anyway no one wants to be invaded by this country and puppeted by it or the Nuclear Trifecta. That is if they know it.

So your being prepared for another great victory for democracy in Syria or some Russian strongman. Either way is should work out for US cause well in like in good ole Iraq. Iran has its pipelines right into its *refinery from the conqeored Iraq. Russia is pumping oil right there along with its buddy China and it really good ole boy poker player the U.S.

*They ship straight to terminal by the way. B.P. Shell, Exxon etc. Its much eaiser to refine heavy crude first then ship.