Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 6/28/07 12:38 AM, Ravariel wrote: ...just when you thought these debates couldn't get any more retarded...

rememberl, evolution is just a theory!!!111

---

At 6/28/07 12:38 AM, Ravariel wrote: ...just when you thought these debates couldn't get any more retarded...

is that supposed to be a rebuttal to my argument?

---

At 6/28/07 12:22 AM, Altarus wrote: But, it is commonly in your evolutionary interest to murder. For instance, the murder of sexual rivals is a tendancy of humans that is acknowledged in evolution.

Well, I'm certainly not saying there's not contradiction anywhere. But think about it, we do not feel that killing in all ways is immoral. Self-defense is one example... many would say that someone boning your wife is another.

Moreover, the majority of tribes in prehistoric cultures were in a state of constant war with other tribes, with the vast majority of tribes being in a war at least once per year.

Remember, I said "murder" not "killing", and most people see killing in wartime as necessary and, if not moral, at least not immoral. Certain atrocities aside, of course. Also competing with other tribes for land and food can be considered necessary and thus moral for the basis of tribal survival. Most of the murder I was talking about would be inter-tribe. Only when you staret having largwer civilization networks does the morality extend to include them. Hell, this is a topic for several scholarly papers in and of itself... probably a couple semesters' worth.

I find it surprising you would turn to ancient civillizations and evolution to find a basis for morality, when in fact, the history of mankind shows unrelenting barbarity and inhumanity.

But it usually only ever shows it to other cultures/tribes/peoples. And this is significant. The survival of the family group when we were nomadic was the most important, as such most of the issues I mention when performed in the family group would be immediately devastating to that group. When societal groups grew to several families, the same morality encompassed the whole tribe, but not others. Now we have entire countries whose morality is the same (though the effect of individual immoral acts is smaller on the whole) and yet many find no qualms even now in torturing "enemies" or killing them. Do we weep for the Cubans who die trying to get here? Do we weep for the victims of crime in Germany? No, we don't care (in general), they're not our people.

Morality starts at the family level, and grows as your community grows, to encompass it and allow oneself to be an accepted part of that community. The communities of the past were much smaller than the communities today, which is why we find what appears to be a great deal of immorality between tribes.

At 6/28/07 01:07 AM, Altarus wrote:

At 6/28/07 12:38 AM, Ravariel wrote: ...just when you thought these debates couldn't get any more retarded...

is that supposed to be a rebuttal to my argument?

No, sorry, you snuck that post in between mine and the one(s) it was meant for. Apologies.

---

Just don't generalize, man.

Lmao, I got an error when I tried to quote, classic.

---

Religion needs to be abolished. Believe in the people and society instead.

---

Athesists, as a group are not being 'whiny little bitches'... It is just the noiser ones that the media pay attention to, Like how the media pays atttention to Fred Phelps, the noisy 'God hates Fags' bastard...You cannot generalize about atheists for the same reason you cannot generalize about Christians:There are many kinds of both...

---

the athiests have cry babies, and so do religious groups.

like how some say dinosaurs never existed and some even say that there are no fossils.

i say the bible was man made.many stories not true. but it is used as a guide to help our lives, not control them.
if god wants every breath to be religious and god loving, then heaven will be no different.
just live your life as a good person.

---

Just chiming in here, anyone who brought up that America was founded on Christian values is wrong.

The majority of the founding fathers were deists. If that term doesn't ring any bells, it's because it was an idea that was quashed by the Church.

Anyway, it's basically the idea that the only way to have an experience with any sort of higher being was through nature, and that most organised form of religion was simply herding people into churches an taking their money.

Figured I'd add that to the conversation, and by the way, I side with the atheists wholeheartedly.

---

At 6/28/07 01:46 PM, Zamber0ni wrote: Just chiming in here, anyone who brought up that America was founded on Christian values is wrong.

Maybe so, but I doubt that they would approve of organizations like the ACLU complaining about crosses on private property.

The majority of the founding fathers were deists. If that term doesn't ring any bells, it's because it was an idea that was quashed by the Church.

Which church?

Anyway, it's basically the idea that the only way to have an experience with any sort of higher being was through nature, and that most organised form of religion was simply herding people into churches an taking their money.

I just love how broad of a term "christian" is.

Figured I'd add that to the conversation, and by the way, I side with the atheists wholeheartedly.

No wonder...

---

everyones entitled to an opinion although there is more proof [by more i mean pretty much everything] to say evolution is what happens.
Also if the big bang caused the universe what caused the big bang and how did the hydrogen get there?

---

At 6/28/07 10:41 AM, HogWashSoup wrote: the athiests have cry babies, and so do religious groups.

like how some say dinosaurs never existed and some even say that there are no fossils.

How many religious people do you see online claiming that dinosaurs never existed? How many atheists do you see online whining about religion? Ok then.

---

At 6/28/07 03:08 PM, Altarus wrote:

At 6/28/07 10:41 AM, HogWashSoup wrote: the athiests have cry babies, and so do religious groups.

like how some say dinosaurs never existed and some even say that there are no fossils.

How many religious people do you see online claiming that dinosaurs never existed? How many atheists do you see online whining about religion? Ok then.

How many religions people do you see online whining about atheists? Whining about the gay people and their "gay agenda"? About how group X is destroying America and must be gotten rid of? How many sites on the Internet can you find that outright lies about evolution because it collides with their beliefs? How many sites can you find that says AIDS is God's punishment for being homosexual, or having sex outside of marriage? How many sites can you find that says Katrina and all natural disasters are acts of God because we sin?

Don't pretend that religions people are the victims while the big bad atheists are attacking them.

All groups, ALL OF THEM, have assholes, grow up and realize this.

---

At 6/28/07 04:06 PM, Drakim wrote:

bunch of stuff.

Not nearly as many as gays whining about not getting special treatment.
Not nearly as many as atheists using evolution to tell religous people to fuck off.

Example. Out of ALL of the religous threads on this BBS, how many were started in support of religion, and how many started in opposition to it?

I rest my case.

Don't pretend that religions people are the victims while the big bad atheists are attacking them.

Considering that it's atheists who complain and bring up law suits against Christianity (and basically christianity ONLY, never judaism or Islamic).

ACLU wants crosses from a private property memorial removed despite what the vets say. And there was only 1 atheist who complained because he found it "offensive".

In Britain there's a particular school where muslims can wear headscarves (despite school policy) and bangles, but ban the wearing of a chastity ring.

A school is paying for muslim washing facilities and the ACLU said they had no problem with it as it promotes cleanliness. Which is Ironic as you would figure that sex until after marrige is safer.

The ACLU wants a court room to remove a picture of Jesus holding a bible open to passeges like "Judge with righteous judgement" (hey! Good advice) and they ONLY have 1 written complaint.

They are atheists who complain about "in God we trust" on our money.

They wanted the 10 commandments out of a government building. Hey! 10 Commandments. More good advice to follow. (no, I do not mean those that say "no other gods before me", you know exactly what i'm talking about).

Complaining over a Christmas Tree in Times Square.

Complaining over the use of "merry chistmas".

However, they do not complain about Muslim students receiving weeks off school to attend religous ceremonies.

They complain over ELECTIVE classes to teach the historical significance of the Bible, yet they are ALL FOR an elective class of the Koran because it'll teach "tolerance".

All groups, ALL OF THEM, have assholes, grow up and realize this.

They sure do, except all of the really loud ones come from Atheists.

---

At 6/28/07 01:46 PM, Zamber0ni wrote: Just chiming in here, anyone who brought up that America was founded on Christian values is wrong.

America itself isn't christian, but almost all the concepts that founded the US were a mixture of Judeo-Christian and Greek philosophies.

The majority of the founding fathers were deists. If that term doesn't ring any bells, it's because it was an idea that was quashed by the Church.

Wrong, most of the delegates were infact, christian, it's just the prominent ones were deists such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. Why do you think they prayed before every Continental assembly?

Anyway, it's basically the idea that the only way to have an experience with any sort of higher being was through nature, and that most organised form of religion was simply herding people into churches an taking their money.

Um, I think you're confusing deism with transcendentalism optimism.

Figured I'd add that to the conversation, and by the way, I side with the atheists wholeheartedly.

The atheist belief or the whiney, arrogant assholes that piss everyone off for no reason?

---

At 6/28/07 04:06 PM, Drakim wrote: How many religions people do you see online whining about atheists? Whining about the gay people and their "gay agenda"? About how group X is destroying America and must be gotten rid of? How many sites on the Internet can you find that outright lies about evolution because it collides with their beliefs? How many sites can you find that says AIDS is God's punishment for being homosexual, or having sex outside of marriage? How many sites can you find that says Katrina and all natural disasters are acts of God because we sin?

Quite honestly, as a casual Internet surfer and forum regular, I see more atheists complaining about religion than all of those combined. And atheists are a much smaller portion of the population.

Don't pretend that religions people are the victims while the big bad atheists are attacking them.

I did not victimize religious people at all.

All groups, ALL OF THEM, have assholes, grow up and realize this.

Yes, both have cry babies, but that is not really the point is it?

---

At 6/28/07 05:21 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/28/07 04:06 PM, Drakim wrote:

bunch of stuff.

Not nearly as many as gays whining about not getting special treatment.
Not nearly as many as atheists using evolution to tell religous people to fuck off.

Or perhaps, just possibly, because you agree with those that oppose these issues you do not view those that voice their concern as 'whiners' but as people expressing a valid opinion, as is their constitutional right. I think it safe to say you're rather biased against these issue on account of the language you use and therefore it is not unreasonable to assume that this may well be the case.

Example. Out of ALL of the religous threads on this BBS, how many were started in support of religion, and how many started in opposition to it?

I rest my case.

Again, the possibility of selective observation raises its ugly head. Vocal partisans on both sides make theselvesheard on a regular basis as any who frequent the BBS can attest to so your case is flawed.

Don't pretend that religions people are the victims while the big bad atheists are attacking them.

Considering that it's atheists who complain and bring up law suits against Christianity (and basically christianity ONLY, never judaism or Islamic).

Firstly this, if true, is because christianity is the major religion of the western world as its proponents so love to tell us. Its icons, beliefs, scripture, symbols etc. confront all of us everywhere we turn. When this occurs in governmental matters in a country that is supposedly secular then one can understand, if not condone, a non-religious person complaint. I personally feel both sides should simply be quiet and leave us in peace but such a hope is sadly a folly. Secondly you cannot prove that, for example in France (a feircly secular country) they have banned muslim garb everywhere and in England many schools have done the same.

ACLU wants crosses from a private property memorial removed despite what the vets say. And there was only 1 atheist who complained because he found it "offensive".

Wait, your claim is that most athiests are 'whiney' but you say that only one complained? Does that not seem to go against your arguement somewhat?

In Britain there's a particular school where muslims can wear headscarves (despite school policy) and bangles, but ban the wearing of a chastity ring.

As I said there are many schools that prohibit muslim adornments and Christianity is much more prolific that any other religion. Besides which it is currently very dangerous political ground to interfere in Islamic matters. When the situation has calmed down somewhat I am sure organisationswill be less hesitant to ban such things. Till then however they cannot afford to risk it; "The Satanic Verses" anyone?

A school is paying for muslim washing facilities and the ACLU said they had no problem with it as it promotes cleanliness. Which is Ironic as you would figure that sex until after marrige is safer.

Again, dangerous grounds. One could also argue that prohibiting sex before marriage is an infringement on our basic liberties at which point it becomes clear why ACLU might just get involved. Regularly bathing however does not.

The ACLU wants a court room to remove a picture of Jesus holding a bible open to passeges like "Judge with righteous judgement" (hey! Good advice) and they ONLY have 1 written complaint.

Again, only one person complaining which defeats the point you are attempting to make. I do not agree with this, but it is hardly indicative of a legion of whining athiests.

They are atheists who complain about "in God we trust" on our money.

They do not put their trust 'in god' nd to have such a statement on the legal tender of a secular sountry is, frankly, ridiculous. This does not mean it should go, of course, but one can understand why those who are not relgious might object.

They wanted the 10 commandments out of a government building. Hey! 10 Commandments. More good advice to follow. (no, I do not mean those that say "no other gods before me", you know exactly what i'm talking about).

The issue is not with the commandments themselves (bar of course the overtly religious ones) but with their religious connotations. Such connotations do not belong in the governmental buildings of a secular country. I do not care whether they are there or not of course but one can, again, understand the complaint. It is, after all, only a whine if the point of contention is invalid.

Complaining over a Christmas Tree in Times Square.

Now that I concede is ridculous, but then again so are the religious extremists who claim god created HIV to destroy the 'scourge of homosexuality'. I am not saying this justifies the athiest complainers but it does show that both sides are guilty of vocal members making ludicrous statements.

Complaining over the use of "merry chistmas".

Same as above.

However, they do not complain about Muslim students receiving weeks off school to attend religous ceremonies.

All major Christian holidays are celebrated across the board, including school holidays. In fact in some areas the school-term system is based around these religious celebrations. I fail to see how you can object to a system where the participants in the religion concerned are allowed time off to attend one of the main tenants of their faith (assuming you were referring to the Hajj) and furthermore in this case it is ONLY those concerned not the entire nation.

They complain over ELECTIVE classes to teach the historical significance of the Bible, yet they are ALL FOR an elective class of the Koran because it'll teach "tolerance".

The teachings of Christianity filter through in to the school system regardless of elective classes and accordingly said classes are superfluous. I recall distinctly being taught such things from the moment I entered education. Islam. however, does not enjoy such treatment and in an era when there is such prejudice against it then it is necessarry. "Tolerance", as you put it, is essential on both sides.

All groups, ALL OF THEM, have assholes, grow up and realize this.

They sure do, except all of the really loud ones come from Atheists.

A biased and, frankly. untrue statement which I shan't even bother rebutting.

---

At 6/28/07 08:03 PM, Pontificate wrote:

I think it safe to say you're rather biased against these issue on account of the language you use and therefore it is not unreasonable to assume that this may well be the case.

Because... language means everything.

So, did I ever say I didn't believe in evolution?

Again, the possibility of selective observation raises its ugly head. Vocal partisans on both sides make theselvesheard on a regular basis as any who frequent the BBS can attest to so your case is flawed.

Go ahead and use the search bar. Just type in the key word: Religion.

You can also use others such as evolution ect..

Anyway. Religion got these out of the first page.

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=64 1304
http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=71 9018
http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=71 2060
http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=70 1334
http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=68 0976
http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=68 1671
http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=68 0633
http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=68 4016
http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=65 9460
http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=67 0488
http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=67 0481

Firstly this, if true, is because christianity is the major religion of the western world as its proponents so love to tell us. Its icons, beliefs, scripture, symbols etc. confront all of us everywhere we turn.

Whoop dee friggin do. Go cry me a river.

When this occurs in governmental matters in a country that is supposedly secular then one can understand, if not condone, a non-religious person complaint. I personally feel both sides should simply be quiet and leave us in peace but such a hope is sadly a folly.

If the loud atheists could keep quiet, then maybe the loud religous people would shut up.

Secondly you cannot prove that, for example in France (a feircly secular country) they have banned muslim garb everywhere and in England many schools have done the same.

except...

Secular countries suck for one reason. "If we don't like seeing a religous symbol, we're going to ban it as soon as we do". Which is basically the loud atheist's mentality.

Take the cross WWI memorial. It was on private property. The Veterans objected to them taking down. Many things religions stand for are GOOD.

Example. The 10 commandments. Or, let's take away the "god" parts on them. Do not murder. Do not lie. Do not steal. All of these are good things, but if any one of these appear anywhere, the loud atheists cry and complain as if they don't like the Bible says about these things.

Why? They represent good things. But if it has any Christian (and only christian in this nation) connotation, then they believe it should be immediately banned just so they don't have to look at it.

Wait, your claim is that most athiests are 'whiney' but you say that only one complained? Does that not seem to go against your arguement somewhat?

Yeah, you hear more about loud atheists than loud religous people. Besides, that was one example.

When the situation has calmed down somewhat I am sure organisationswill be less hesitant to ban such things.

Can you tell me what's wrong with wearing a simple, small ring that promotes more safety?

Again, dangerous grounds. One could also argue that prohibiting sex before marriage is an infringement on our basic liberties at which point it becomes clear why ACLU might just get involved. Regularly bathing however does not.

Haha, this is why you people are so damn ignorant.

No wonder society goes down the shitter.

No one forced anyone. However, the school is directly funding a religous practice. If this were a christian practice, you'd bitch, whine, and complain.

Again, only one person complaining which defeats the point you are attempting to make. I do not agree with this, but it is hardly indicative of a legion of whining athiests.

1 written.

I didn't say it was the only. But you get the point don't you? It might just be one person, but these things just keep adding up.

They do not put their trust 'in god' nd to have such a statement on the legal tender of a secular sountry is, frankly, ridiculous. This does not mean it should go, of course, but one can understand why those who are not relgious might object.

If you get rid of "In God we trust", then you would also have to tear down numerous governmental and historical buildings because of religous symbols. You would have to rewrite the constitution if we had it "your" way.

You can see the point right? Haha, religion was here first in this country, as far as buildings and symbols go.

The issue is not with the commandments themselves (bar of course the overtly religious ones) but with their religious connotations.

EXACTLY!

You know what? I'm offended. I demand you put them back up.

How does it sound? I'm only acting exactly like you.

Now that I concede is ridculous, but then again so are the religious extremists who claim god created HIV to destroy the 'scourge of homosexuality'.

And how many of those nuts do you hear compared to the others?

I am not saying this justifies the athiest complainers but it does show that both sides are guilty of vocal members making ludicrous statements.

No, but you are making up an excuse so that those who complain do not make you look bad.

All major Christian holidays are celebrated across the board, including school holidays.

Yes, except you went as far as to ban the name "christmas" and "easter" (for fuck's sake) on calendars.

The teachings of Christianity filter through in to the school system regardless of elective classes and accordingly said classes are superfluous. I recall distinctly being taught such things from the moment I entered education.

That's called World History.

How are you going to skip religion when studying about a nation?

A biased and, frankly. untrue statement which I shan't even bother rebutting.

Because you can't.

Go ahead. Name law suits by religous people against an atheist standing. But, I want many more than what i've listed.

I love these topics. They show me how hypocritical and stupid people like you really are.

---

At 6/28/07 08:38 PM, Memorize wrote: Because... language means everything.

Strong language is generally indicative of someone's stance on the matter, yes.

So, did I ever say I didn't believe in evolution?

Not really, no, but you made it quite clear that you feel that athiests shouldn't use it to tell 'religous people to shut up'. Therefore object to whenever that happens making such a moment far more memorable.

Anyway. Religion got these out of the first page.

Conceded there does seem to be a surfeit of such topics on the BBS, that is not however a reliable cross-section of athiesm and you have to agree there are also a fair few pro-religious one. Besides which I find that the vocal religious partisans tend to wait till such a topic arises and then reply. Generally the most vehement posts in these threads are by them.

Whoop dee friggin do. Go cry me a river.

Capital rebuttal there sir. I can feel my arguement crumbling away as we speak.

If the loud atheists could keep quiet, then maybe the loud religous people would shut up.

And vice versa? As I said both sides are guilty. But it is EQUALLY guilty. I do not deny atheists complain unjustly but that you cannot take the high ground in this matter.

Secondly you cannot prove that, for example in France (a feircly secular country) they have banned muslim garb everywhere and in England many schools have done the same.

except...

Secular countries suck for one reason. "If we don't like seeing a religous symbol, we're going to ban it as soon as we do". Which is basically the loud atheist's mentality.

A religious symbol, in government, goes against the very point of a secular government. Therefore yes it should be abolished where such a thing arises. In private or commercial affairs then the government should (and generally doesn't) intefere, regardless of a secular status.

Take the cross WWI memorial. It was on private property. The Veterans objected to them taking down. Many things religions stand for are GOOD.

Good, bad means little to the complainers. They object to the simple fact it is religious. Is that justified? No, of course not. However as you yourself stated only one person complained.

Example. The 10 commandments. Or, let's take away the "god" parts on them. Do not murder. Do not lie. Do not steal. All of these are good things, but if any one of these appear anywhere, the loud atheists cry and complain as if they don't like the Bible says about these things.

Again, it's not the message about the commandments this people complain about its the fact they are religious and in a secular setting. The two cannot be reconciled regardless of how much you wish they could.

Why? They represent good things. But if it has any Christian (and only christian in this nation) connotation, then they believe it should be immediately banned just so they don't have to look at it.

It's not only Christian. I am certain Shariah law would illicit a similar response. Stop feeling like the attacked party. The representations are meaningless as I've already stated. It's the source and the connotations.

Yeah, you hear more about loud atheists than loud religous people. Besides, that was one example.

That makes little sense, if you hear more about loud athiests surely there would be more than one atheist omplaining. Especially if, as you are claiming, athiests are inherently vocal.

Can you tell me what's wrong with wearing a simple, small ring that promotes more safety?

Well nothing, other than what it represents. A rather stilted, archaic view that has, unfortunately, become eternally conciled to the church and that deny people a basic right: the right to have sex whenever one choses and to whoever one choses.

Haha, this is why you people are so damn ignorant.

No wonder society goes down the shitter.

Care to elaborate? How is the message that we are not allowed to make love to one another till we are married not a direct infringement on our right TO make love to one another whensoever we chose.

No one forced anyone. However, the school is directly funding a religous practice. If this were a christian practice, you'd bitch, whine, and complain.

Not really, this 'offended, holier-than-thou' mindset is becoming incredibly tired.

1 written.

I didn't say it was the only. But you get the point don't you? It might just be one person, but these things just keep adding up.

Not when the point you are trying to make is that there is an overwhelming number of these vocal athiests, no.

If you get rid of "In God we trust", then you would also have to tear down numerous governmental and historical buildings because of religous symbols. You would have to rewrite the constitution if we had it "your" way.

Well frankly to make the claim that there should be seperation between religion and state and then to adorn so many matters of state with so many religious symbolism is a tad hypocritical. Besides which I personally care little whether it remains there or not, the point is one can understand precisely why it is that one would complain.

You can see the point right? Haha, religion was here first in this country, as far as buildings and symbols go.

So? Technically speaking spirit worship was first in your country so should you adorn your governmental buildings with the bones of your ancestors as well?

EXACTLY!

You know what? I'm offended. I demand you put them back up.

How does it sound? I'm only acting exactly like you.

Not really, you're acting exactly like the people you claim to dislike. As I stated before and will again just to make it perfectly clear: I honestly could not care less what religious symbols you adorn your institutions with. Besides which the people had a valid complaint there; religious iconography does not belong in a secular institution. Your complaint, however, is based on nothing but your religious desires.

And how many of those nuts do you hear compared to the others?

To what others? Creationists? Fundamentalists? 'Intelligent-Design theorists? Those who deny Dinosaurs? Those who deny evoloution? Literalists? White supremacists? No, not many. There's quite a few though; Fred Phelps probably being the most infamous.

No, but you are making up an excuse so that those who complain do not make you look bad.

No, I'm just showing both sides are equally guilty. As I said quite clearly at that time.

Yes, except you went as far as to ban the name "christmas" and "easter" (for fuck's sake) on calendars.

The holiday's are still celebrated nationally are they not? Do not blame athiests for fickly corporations who are terified of law suits.

That's called World History.

How precisely is the story of the last supper, good friday, easter, Christmas, the entirety of Jesus' life, Moses, Abraham etc taught in a purely religious tone World History?

How are you going to skip religion when studying about a nation?

You aren't. The point is we get so much of that as it is elective classes on it are superfluous whereas Islam ones are not. How much does your average person know about the formulation of Islam? Now how much do they know about Christianity? Point made.

Because you can't.

No, because I spent the entire post rebutting that and to adress that particular inflamotary and subjective statement would be simultaneously superfluous, pointless and beneath civil discourse.

Go ahead. Name law suits by religous people against an atheist standing. But, I want many more than what i've listed.

Such rarely occur because athiesm is a minority whereas Christianity is a majority. Christians are therefore not battling anything, some athiests are. I can however cite cases where relgious bias has cost athiests in legal cases.

I love these topics. They show me how hypocritical and stupid people like you really are.

Ah sweeping generalisations. How I love them so; so ammusing.

---

"A religious symbol, in government, goes against the very point of a secular government. Therefore yes it should be abolished where such a thing arises. In private or commercial affairs then the government should (and generally doesn't) intefere, regardless of a secular status."

That should read 'shouldn't'. Plenty of other grammatical errors but frankly I do not care enough to adress them all. The BBS could really use an edit function.

---

At 6/28/07 09:41 PM, Pontificate wrote:

Strong language is generally indicative of someone's stance on the matter, yes.

Who are you?

Not really, no, but you made it quite clear that you feel that athiests shouldn't use it to tell 'religous people to shut up'. Therefore object to whenever that happens making such a moment far more memorable.

I didn't say that they shouldn't, no matter what. I'm saying that everyone should leave each other alone unless in some debate.

Don't cause trouble.

I love it when people read too much into my replies.

Conceded there does seem to be a surfeit of such topics on the BBS, that is not however a reliable cross-section of athiesm and you have to agree there are also a fair few pro-religious one.

A few.

But in terms of bashing, loud atheists win on this forum... and in law suits.

Besides which I find that the vocal religious partisans tend to wait till such a topic arises and then reply. Generally the most vehement posts in these threads are by them.

Yes. People shouldn't instigate.

And why shouldn't they?

If people create a topic challenging other's beliefs (in a non-mature way/ex. your belief sucks), then others should be able to be vocal. If an atheist creates an anti-religion topic, religous people should respond. If a religous person creates an anti-atheist topic, then atheists should respond.

Capital rebuttal there sir. I can feel my arguement crumbling away as we speak.

You just started...

And vice versa?

Yes.

As I said both sides are guilty. But it is EQUALLY guilty. I do not deny atheists complain unjustly but that you cannot take the high ground in this matter.

I'm not taking the higher ground. I'm saying that in terms of complaints, loud atheists take the cake.

A religious symbol, in government, goes against the very point of a secular government.

Yes. I agree. Go on.

Therefore yes it should be abolished where such a thing arises.

uh huh.

In private or commercial affairs then the government should (and generally doesn't) intefere, regardless of a secular status.

I'm assuming you mean "shouldn't".

Good, bad means little to the complainers. They object to the simple fact it is religious. Is that justified? No, of course not. However as you yourself stated only one person complained.

And as I stated, it adds up.

It's not only Christian. I am certain Shariah law would illicit a similar response. Stop feeling like the attacked party. The representations are meaningless as I've already stated. It's the source and the connotations.

When someone says Merry Christmas. How many of them are actually telling you to do something religous?

That makes little sense, if you hear more about loud athiests surely there would be more than one atheist omplaining. Especially if, as you are claiming, athiests are inherently vocal.

There's more than one.

It just takes 1 to make a case, but there's more than 1 case.

Well nothing, other than what it represents. A rather stilted, archaic view that has, unfortunately, become eternally conciled to the church and that deny people a basic right: the right to have sex whenever one choses and to whoever one choses.

How is advising people to do something safer imposing upon someone?

Care to elaborate? How is the message that we are not allowed to make love to one another till we are married not a direct infringement on our right TO make love to one another whensoever we chose.

I should sue the government for not letting me make love when i'm 17.

Not really, this 'offended, holier-than-thou' mindset is becoming incredibly tired.

Well, I do love being better than a lot of people.

Not when the point you are trying to make is that there is an overwhelming number of these vocal athiests, no.

I never said there was an overwhelming number. Just that there are more.

Well frankly to make the claim that there should be seperation between religion and state and then to adorn so many matters of state with so many religious symbolism is a tad hypocritical.

A building with a religous symbol is not imposing a religion upon you as you can still believe and do whatever you wish.

The only time when church and state are intertwined and imposing upon people is when the government passes religous law that affects the populace.

So? Technically speaking spirit worship was first in your country so should you adorn your governmental buildings with the bones of your ancestors as well?

No. They're just paintings, pictures.

I could care less if I walked into a building with say Darwin and Evolution plastered all over the walls. Or Islamic paintings on the ceiling. It's just paint. It's just a building. It doesn't affect me.

Not really, you're acting exactly like the people you claim to dislike.

No, I don't bring lawsuits.

Your complaint, however, is based on nothing but your religious desires.

You have no idea how much I hate religion in government.

The difference is is that i'm not affected by paintings or symbols that teach good things as all they are are paint.

So long as the government does not pass a religous law, I could care less.

But you take it one step further. Which causes friction, division, and hatred.

No, I'm just showing both sides are equally guilty. As I said quite clearly at that time.

Yes. And I believe I made it clear that 1 side is the loudest.

The holiday's are still celebrated nationally are they not? Do not blame athiests for fickly corporations who are terified of law suits.

As breaks, not religous.

I never celebrated Christmas as a religion. It was always about presents with my family. One of my grandparents never celebrated Christmas for a long time because it was a Catholic holiday.

I just found it utterly pointless to complain about days off.

How precisely is the story of the last supper, good friday, easter, Christmas, the entirety of Jesus' life, Moses, Abraham etc taught in a purely religious tone World History?

Since when was Moses and Abraham taught in World History?

My point was: If you people have no problem having an elective on the teachings of Islam, then why do some of you complain about an elective on the writers and writings of the Bible?

I can't believe you asked such a stupid question. The Bible has been around for nearly 2000 years if you count the New Testament only. You could learn about Roman and Jewish culture. You could learn about Roman intollerance and Christian persecution. You could learn the writings, the way they were written.

Some of these things are already covered in High School World History.

But very small though.

You aren't. The point is we get so much of that as it is elective classes on it are superfluous whereas Islam ones are not. How much does your average person know about the formulation of Islam? Now how much do they know about Christianity? Point made.

And this is where I deem you a hypocrite. Proof of an atheistic quality: Oppose any Christian value, do nothing about the rest.

Haha, I love you fucking idiots.

No, because I spent the entire post rebutting that and to adress that particular inflamotary and subjective statement would be simultaneously superfluous, pointless and beneath civil discourse.

No. You spent an entire post thinking you were rebutting mine when what you really did was skim over my words and assume I said things I didn't.

Such rarely occur because athiesm is a minority whereas Christianity is a majority.

That makes 0 sense.

Ah sweeping generalisations. How I love them so; so ammusing.

Ah, blatant stupidity, how I love how morons make me feel superior.

---

At 6/28/07 10:32 PM, Memorize wrote: I love it when people read too much into my replies.

If I was reading too much in to your words then I apologise, in all fairness though it is all you give me to go by.

But in terms of bashing, loud atheists win on this forum... and in law suits.

Quite clearly, the point is that the BBS is not a fair cross section of any group, nor is law suits.

And why shouldn't they?

Oh by all means defend yourselves, I am remarking more on those who seem to wait exclusively for such a thing in order to pounce on it and condemn us all to hell.

You just started...

Sarcasm good sir, as I am sure you are aware.

Yes.

Capital, then we are agreed here at least: both sides should keep quiet.

I'm not taking the higher ground. I'm saying that in terms of complaints, loud atheists take the cake.

Well in doing so you're taking the higher ground; 'Yes we are both guilty, but you lot are worse'. Which isn't true.

I'm assuming you mean "shouldn't".

Quite right there.

And as I stated, it adds up.

Not to the degree you are attempting to convey. It adds up like one and one adds up, not like how a single grain of sand adds up to make the shore.

When someone says Merry Christmas. How many of them are actually telling you to do something religous?

The point there was that it is the religious connotations that cause problems. The intent need not be there for the connotations to be. 'Merry Christmas' is a religious wellwishing. I am personally fine with it but you can see why some might not be.

It just takes 1 to make a case, but there's more than 1 case.

Thus far you have stated two. In each case the athiest involved was singular.

How is advising people to do something safer imposing upon someone?

Simple, I could say to you 'How is advising people to remove religious iconography from all wlks of life imposing on someone?'. As this advice goes against what you personally believe you are likely to feel imposed upon.

I should sue the government for not letting me make love when i'm 17.

You could make that arguement, yes, but that is an entirely different matter. The government is allowed to impose on people, the church is not.

I never said there was an overwhelming number. Just that there are more.

And I said I disagree. You put the premise of this arguement so eloquently.

A building with a religous symbol is not imposing a religion upon you as you can still believe and do whatever you wish.

Oh of course. A supposedly secular governmental institution however is imposing on people. It goes against the grain so to speak.

The only time when church and state are intertwined and imposing upon people is when the government passes religous law that affects the populace.

Or when it claims to be secular and then injects a healthy dose of religious symbolism in to itself. IT imposes on people simply because they disagree with it, much in the same way I am imposing myself on you and vice versa. IT may be dreadfully selfish and subjective but then again human's generally are.

No. They're just paintings, pictures.

They are icons, symbols of something greater than their sum. As I have explained why religious connotationsimpose themselves on to athiests and vice versa I need not expand on this point.

I could care less if I walked into a building with say Darwin and Evolution plastered all over the walls. Or Islamic paintings on the ceiling. It's just paint. It's just a building. It doesn't affect me.

As could I, but we're not all of us are so charitable.

No, I don't bring lawsuits.

NEither do most Athiests.

You have no idea how much I hate religion in government.

The difference is is that i'm not affected by paintings or symbols that teach good things as all they are are paint.

Again, we aren't all as understanding as this. Many see something they disagree with and then in an attempt to spread their way of life and make their own life better by removing this percieved offense(two primal human compulsions) they petition against it. Much like the current controversy about Intelligent design being forced in to schools and evoloution forced out.

But you take it one step further. Which causes friction, division, and hatred.

My word man, stop referring to me as if I give a damn about such matters. I have quite clearly said I don't. Oh and same goes for certain religious people really.

Yes. And I believe I made it clear that 1 side is the loudest.

No, you simply said it was. You are welcome to your opinion of course but so is everyone else and they might just disagree with you there.

As breaks, not religous.

So all those programs about the nativity, christian carrols and what have you are just filler between the presents then? You may not have but many do and it is still socially celebrated under religious pretenses.

Since when was Moses and Abraham taught in World History?

Not necessarilly world history, but the stories generally get through via assemblies and whatnot.

My point was: If you people have no problem having an elective on the teachings of Islam, then why do some of you complain about an elective on the writers and writings of the Bible?

Because we already KNOW all this, it is drilled in to us from a very early age. Islamic teachings are not and are never going to be, so elective classes for the curious are more appropriate and less of a waste of expenditure.

I can't believe you asked such a stupid question. The Bible has been around for nearly 2000 years if you count the New Testament only. You could learn about Roman and Jewish culture. You could learn about Roman intollerance and Christian persecution. You could learn the writings, the way they were written.

Do you really believe a class on Islam would cover such minutae? No, it would cover the general outline and some of the historical motivation behind it. Much as we learn about Christianity. We all know the bare bones about the initial persecution and related topics as that is all we need to know. To study it in depth, as I say, is a waste of time unless you intend to take a degree in religious studies.

Some of these things are already covered in High School World History.

The minutae are generally only the subject matter of theologians and historians. Neither of which are likely to be found at a High School level.

And this is where I deem you a hypocrite. Proof of an atheistic quality: Oppose any Christian value, do nothing about the rest.

You misunderstand my good sir, you see I was merely commenting on how superfluous an elective class on Christianity would be. The average Joe already knows almost everything such a course would feasibly cover and therefore it would be a needless expense. This average Joe, however, knows next to nothing about Islam. Therefore such a class is not suerfluous. It has nothing to do with 'Christianity bad, all other religions okay'. This is where the 'offended and hollier than thou attitude' is at its most tiresome.

No. You spent an entire post thinking you were rebutting mine when what you really did was skim over my words and assume I said things I didn't.

The fact I have responded to every single point you have made whereas you appear to pick and chose as you see fit would seem to disagree with you there.

That makes 0 sense.

The point I am making, my apologies if it was not clear, is that of course Christianity does not often attack anything legally, it's in the majority. Western society is predisposed towards it. It has no need to battle anything. Athiests, however, are in the minority and this tends to create a rather defensive mindset in some. These 'rebels with a rather ludicrous cause', as I affectionately name them, therefore do attack the 'big, bad guys'.

Ah, blatant stupidity, how I love how morons make me feel superior.

Sorry to be pedantic but I believe you mean 'patent stupidity', the confusion between the two is something of an anthema to me. Oh and kindly grow up, such ad hominem attacks are firstly entirely baseless and secondly below debate.

---

At 6/28/07 11:30 PM, Pontificate wrote:

Oh by all means defend yourselves, I am remarking more on those who seem to wait exclusively for such a thing in order to pounce on it and condemn us all to hell.

Just so you know, I hate religous people who "condemn" someone to hell.

As if they somehow have the kind of rule.

Well in doing so you're taking the higher ground; 'Yes we are both guilty, but you lot are worse'. Which isn't true.

It's not that you're worse, but that your side is louder, or brings up the issue the most.

The point there was that it is the religious connotations that cause problems.

It shouldn't, is my point. No one uses it that way and even if they do, you should still feel good that they're at least telling you to have a nice day. When someone tells me "happy Hanukah", I don't go crazy over it, i'm just happy about what they're implying.

The intent need not be there for the connotations to be. 'Merry Christmas' is a religious wellwishing. I am personally fine with it but you can see why some might not be.

Yes, I can see why they aren't, but that just makes them stupid.

Thus far you have stated two. In each case the athiest involved was singular.

I'm talking about how more cases are brought up.

Simple, I could say to you 'How is advising people to remove religious iconography from all wlks of life imposing on someone?'. As this advice goes against what you personally believe you are likely to feel imposed upon.

I could care less. The only reason why I would be against that is because it would be pointless.

You could make that arguement, yes, but that is an entirely different matter.

No, it isn't.

I'm 17, and I think I should be able to. My arguement: People used to get married at 13.

The government is allowed to impose on people, the church is not.

Giving good advice isn't imposing.

Besides, a chastity ring isn't telling others not to before marrige, it's saying that the person wearing it will not before marrige.

It's not telling others what to do, just what they themselve are doing.

If someone can walk around school with a shirt that has marijuana on it (since, some lawsuits ruled in favor of 'free speech') despite school policy, then someone can wear something as simple as a ring.

Oh of course. A supposedly secular governmental institution however is imposing on people.

no.

Or when it claims to be secular and then injects a healthy dose of religious symbolism in to itself.

The symbols were here hundreds of years before. And as I said, I would against tearing these things down as it would be completely pointless.

IT may be dreadfully selfish and subjective but then again human's generally are.

Humans are generally stupid too, but that doesn't prevent them from voting.

They are icons, symbols of something greater than their sum.

No. They're mere paintings.

I was always fascinated by how others can offended by something they don't believe exists.

As I have explained why religious connotationsimpose themselves on to athiests and vice versa I need not expand on this point.

And that's why today's atheists are truely pathetic beings.

NEither do most Athiests.

I don't know how many times I have to say it, but i'm talking in terms of how many lawsuits from both.

Again, we aren't all as understanding as this.

Which makes me wonder why you defend people like that.

No, you simply said it was. You are welcome to your opinion of course but so is everyone else and they might just disagree with you there.

Just because they might disagree on this doesn't make them any smarter.

So all those programs about the nativity, christian carrols and what have you are just filler between the presents then?

I never did those.

You may not have but many do and it is still socially celebrated under religious pretenses.

Are you going to forbid them from doing it? Just like how you tried to forbit them to say "merry christmas"?

Funny. Calling someone a bitch, a fuck up and such are all protected by free speech. Except Merry Christmas. Astonishing.

Not necessarilly world history, but the stories generally get through via assemblies and whatnot.

Not really.

Because we already KNOW all this, it is drilled in to us from a very early age.

No it isn't.

Islamic teachings are not and are never going to be, so elective classes for the curious are more appropriate and less of a waste of expenditure.

But you just don't get it.

"YOU" atheists stated that you were against it because of Seperation of Church and State. Not because "we already know it".

To study it in depth, as I say, is a waste of time unless you intend to take a degree in religious studies.

That's why they call it an 'elective'. You don't have to take it.

Much of High School is pointless anyway. Biology, Chemistry, Physics are pointless unless you're going into that field.

Yet... they are mandatory.

The minutae are generally only the subject matter of theologians and historians. Neither of which are likely to be found at a High School level.

Yep. So what's the problem on giving people a head start?

You misunderstand my good sir, you see I was merely commenting on how superfluous an elective class on Christianity would be.

But your arguement is not the same as the others who were against it. They were against it because of a violation of the constitution, not because it would be "superfluous".

This average Joe, however, knows next to nothing about Islam. Therefore such a class is not suerfluous. It has nothing to do with 'Christianity bad, all other religions okay'.

I only say to let them have electives on any religion they can fit. If people so choose to go into it, why shouldn't they?

The fact I have responded to every single point you have made whereas you appear to pick and chose as you see fit would seem to disagree with you there.

Pardon me for getting rid of parts of a paragraph so I don't run out of characters in order to reply.

Oh and kindly grow up, such ad hominem attacks are firstly entirely baseless and secondly below debate.

heh. I'm more grown up than you are. Not in terms of insults, but that I don't go out of my way to defend people who's views are different than mine. I could guess that the only reason you defend those few atheists is because you have a disgusted feeling for Christianity slightly.

I also don't become offended by little semi-religous rings either.

---

Wow.. the person who made this topic is an idiot. Where is you proof, solid, real proof that god is real? I'll leave you to it.. because there is none! I'm not saying that there is no god for sure, but you don't fucking know. And if you have any problem with me posting this, lick my balls, because you are doing the exact same thing.

---

At 6/29/07 12:18 AM, battlesix wrote: Wow.. the person who made this topic is an idiot. Where is you proof, solid, real proof that god is real?

sorry buddy, but the thread isn't about whether or not there is a divine being.

---

At 6/28/07 11:55 PM, Memorize wrote: It's not that you're worse, but that your side is louder, or brings up the issue the most.

*head+desk*

Wow, you're fucking retarded.

When someone tells me "happy Hanukah", I don't go crazy over it, i'm just happy about what they're implying.

But you're not talking about you, me or Pont, here, you're talking about the folk that ARE offended by that. I'm sure there are christians who feel offended when jews try to wish them a happy hannukah, or Hajj or whatever else. Few, certainly. Just like the few atheists that are offended by "Merry Christmas".

Using yourself as exemplar of the entire Christian faith is just as retarded as using the shithead who brought suit against the WWI memorial as exemplar of Atheists.

I'm talking about how more cases are brought up.

Prove it. You've given 2 examples. DO I really need to match you example by example of christians bringing suit against other religions or atheists in order for you to stop proving by example?

I'm 17, and I think I should be able to. My arguement: People used to get married at 13.

Actually, most States have Romeo and Juliet laws in place that allow consensual sex between minors between the ages of 16 and 18 (might be 15-17). So chances are good that you could bone your girlfriend (or boyfriend) with no legal repercussions. They were put in place because putting someone on the Sex Offender Registry for Statutory Rape for petting his girlfriend while in High School was seen as obviously retarded.

Giving good advice isn't imposing.

That's a matter of perspective.

Besides, a chastity ring isn't telling others not to before marrige, it's saying that the person wearing it will not before marrige.

Not to derail the topic, but do you know statistically how well chastity vows actually work?

Not very.

The best it can say is that it delayed sexual activity by about 18 months and lowered the number of sexual partners. STDs were the same and 88% of those taking the vow failed to live up to it.

What was that about "pointless"?

Oh yeah, and there's a Christian lawsuit brought against the very ban you complained about. Score one for your complaining side.

No. They're mere paintings.

You have no soul if you can't see the value of art beyond it's material.

I was always fascinated by how others can offended by something they don't believe exists.

Christians don't believe Black Magic, VooDoo, or Pagan Gods exist, but you'd better believe many of them are offended by it, especially if it gets paraded in public. And they would raise a mighty cry if a government building started displaying religious symbolism of it.

I don't know how many times I have to say it, but i'm talking in terms of how many lawsuits from both.

Well, you've got 2, I've got 1, should I find another just to even the score?

I never did those.

You were never in a school Christmas play, never watched The Christmas Story, It's A Wonderful Life, A Christmas Carol, Sang Christmas songs, any of that?

Bullshit.

Are you going to forbid them from doing it? Just like how you tried to forbit them to say "merry christmas"?

Where's it forbidden?

Funny. Calling someone a bitch, a fuck up and such are all protected by free speech. Except Merry Christmas. Astonishing.

Funny, I don't remember any Supreme Court Case saying that it wasn't protected Speech. DO link to it, though... I'd love to read the decision.

Not really.

Yeah, really. I've been atheist/agnostic since I was 10 (or so). I never studied religion until I was in college. I still know most of the christmas stories and mythos, and knew them far earlier than my college days. Unless you live in a cave, you're inundated with it for a month every year.

No it isn't.

Yeah, it is. Selective Observation here. It's expected and normal, it fits with your view of things, so its ubiquitous nature doesn't stand out to you.

Much of High School is pointless anyway. Biology, Chemistry, Physics are pointless unless you're going into that field.

Lol... if you say so, bub.

But your arguement is not the same as the others who were against it. They were against it because of a violation of the constitution, not because it would be "superfluous".

Nowai, people have different arguments about stuff!?!?!?

Astonishing!

I only say to let them have electives on any religion they can fit. If people so choose to go into it, why shouldn't they?

Sounds like a good plan to me... for college.

Oh and kindly grow up, such ad hominem attacks are firstly entirely baseless and secondly below debate.

heh. I'm more grown up than you are.

lolirony

Not in terms of insults, but that I don't go out of my way to defend people who's views are different than mine.

No, you go out of your way to belittle them. You're so much better and more mature!

---

At 6/25/07 05:21 AM, TigerDemon wrote: Ok look I get that some people like to deny the idea that there is a higer being out there even though the evidence that some higer power had to have a hand in the creation of this world stares them in the face daily.

If a deity created the world then who created the deity? What caused the universe? A deity cannot explain this because it is uncaused in an existence that is based on cause and effect. There is no evidence to support any kind of of a higher being or spiritual realm that is exempt from the laws of cause and effect therefore we can safely discard the notion. Look on the news, see all the murder rape violence and disease that plagues our planet and see if you are still capable of stating that there is a being who gives a shit about us.

Sure go ahead and live life in a manner that I think is blind. However dont keep crying about how dumb those of us with faith are, about what evil religion has caused.

We aren't crying about the evil religion has done we are objecting to it (as we would any evil) and commenting on how a religious mindset contributes to it.

For all the ills that religions have caused over time it is done more good. It gives hope and a meaning to life. Because of religion many peoples lives have been turned around for the better. Also do you see any atheists feeding the poor or sheltering the homeless? Nope and ya dont see people taking care of others in the name of nothing do you?

So what you are basically saying is that the good caused by religion makes all the evil it caused and is causing ok? It doesn't. There are several secular charity organizations thank you very much. Religion doesn't make people good, empathy does. Religion does not have any traits, good or bad, that are unique to religion in fact..

Now I may be a pagan with more or less my own belief system and yea I am not a big fan of many sects of the Abrahamic religions but I respect them enough to say that thier belief might just be valid... for them that is.

You don't have to acknowledge that someones opinion or belief might be right in order to respect them. Many of the people I hold in highest regard are religious. I just disagree with their belief in a higher being.

I don't go around trying to prove how dumb what they believe is...... go back to your blind hollow exsistance.

You tell atheists to stop whining about other peoples belief systems and then later in the post turn around and insult a belief system. This shows in full splendor your unbelievable hypocrisy and intellectual dwarfism. The only person who needs to stop complaining is you.

---

At 6/29/07 02:08 AM, Ravariel wrote:

Wow, you're fucking retarded.

uh huh, sure.

Tell that to the number of law suits.

But you're not talking about you, me or Pont, here, you're talking about the folk that ARE offended by that.

Yeah.

I'm sure there are christians who feel offended when jews try to wish them a happy hannukah, or Hajj or whatever else.

And if they are, they can shoot themselves.

Few, certainly. Just like the few atheists that are offended by "Merry Christmas".

Yeah, but I still don't see any religous person trying to ban "happy hannukah". Or atheist for that matter.

Using yourself as exemplar of the entire Christian faith is just as retarded as using the shithead who brought suit against the WWI memorial as exemplar of Atheists.

Yeah.

Prove it. You've given 2 examples. DO I really need to match you example by example of christians bringing suit against other religions or atheists in order for you to stop proving by example?

Go ahead.

The other guy didn't object to the number of lawsuits brought by atheists due to religous reasons.

And i'll still say that those who brought the lawsuits are idiots.

Actually, most States have Romeo and Juliet laws in place that allow consensual sex between minors between the ages of 16 and 18 (might be 15-17).

Goodie for them.

So chances are good that you could bone your girlfriend (or boyfriend) with no legal repercussions.

Even though I should have legal repercussions.

They were put in place because putting someone on the Sex Offender Registry for Statutory Rape for petting his girlfriend while in High School was seen as obviously retarded.

What's retarded is pedophiles complaining that they can't live within 1,000 yards of a bus stop.

That's a matter of perspective.

Yet in General...

Not to derail the topic, but do you know statistically how well chastity vows actually work?

Nope, nor do I care. As that wasn't the point.

The best it can say is that it delayed sexual activity by about 18 months and lowered the number of sexual partners. STDs were the same and 88% of those taking the vow failed to live up to it.

So we're going bring attention to a girl wearing a chastity ring which is more or less a sign of maturity while allowing muslims to wear headscarves and other religions to wear bangles.

Ok...

And it's those statistics that makes me wish America destroys itself.

What was that about "pointless"?

Lol, fucking idiot. You never understand anything.

Oh yeah, and there's a Christian lawsuit brought against the very ban you complained about. Score one for your complaining side.

Yep.

I even linked to it.

However, this one isn't anywhere remotely as stupid as that school allows other religions to wear religous symbols.

You have no soul if you can't see the value of art beyond it's material.

You sound like those crack pot guides who talk about the importance of abstract painting.

Christians don't believe Black Magic, VooDoo, or Pagan Gods exist, but you'd better believe many of them are offended by it, especially if it gets paraded in public.

They might, but I won't. Wee!

And they would raise a mighty cry if a government building started displaying religious symbolism of it.

And if and when that time comes to pass, i'll consider them just as retarded as well.

Well, you've got 2, I've got 1, should I find another just to even the score?

Let's see...

There were 3 incidents of the world war memorial.
1 incident on the courthouse.
1 incident of the Christmas Tree on Times Squre.
1 incident on using the phrase "merry christmas"

Try 6.

You were never in a school Christmas play, never watched The Christmas Story, It's A Wonderful Life, A Christmas Carol, Sang Christmas songs, any of that?

Only 1 christmas carol. Which I didn't play a part in.

Bullshit.

Yeah, but what are you going to do about it?

Oh right, ban it.

Where's it forbidden?

It's not, though you once tried.

Funny, I don't remember any Supreme Court Case saying that it wasn't protected Speech. DO link to it, though... I'd love to read the decision.

Funny, I don't remember saying anything about the Supreme Court.

Yeah, really. I've been atheist/agnostic since I was 10 (or so).

Well, it's nice to know your life's story.

I never studied religion until I was in college.

Here we go...

I still know most of the christmas stories and mythos,

Yes. Go on.

and knew them far earlier than my college days.

Ok... yes...

Unless you live in a cave, you're inundated with it for a month every year.

So you admit to being a whiner just because some tv show came on or people sang out on the streets.

Yeah, it is. Selective Observation here.

Yeah I know. It seems to be rather rampant with your pitiful atheists.

Lol... if you say so, bub.

Let's see... *looks into profile* Job: Game Art.

I fail to see where physics becomes involved.

Case and point: Biology, chemistry, physics, earth science = pointless for the majority of high school kids.

Nowai, people have different arguments about stuff!?!?!?

The difference between his and their's is that their's is a double standard.

Astonishing!

Sounds like a good plan to me... for college.

Only when they make biology, chemistry, physics, and earth science electives.

lolirony

You're the one who seems to think that there needs to be a required belief in order to run for office.

No, you go out of your way to belittle them. You're so much better and more mature!

Yep.

More than you, more than 90% of Americans. At least, more mature anyway.

---

I for one believe in a higher power and am not exactly what you would call a " Good Christian" hell I hardly go to church anymore. I respect other peoples opinions and beliefs. what your saying is double sided, sure there are some atheists out there who bitch and complain
but theres also some christians out there who do the exact same thing. as far as living hollow lives, how can you determine this?.

---

At 6/28/07 08:38 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/28/07 08:03 PM, Pontificate wrote:

except...

Secular countries suck for one reason. "If we don't like seeing a religous symbol, we're going to ban it as soon as we do". Which is basically the loud atheist's mentality.

Which make up a nearly non existent portion of us. We have nothing against religious symbols, but we should not, and will not pay for them.

Take the cross WWI memorial. It was on private property. The Veterans objected to them taking down. Many things religions stand for are GOOD.

What cross are you taking about specifically? The one in the Mojave preserve? Because that cross wasn't on private land, but rather public. Some members of Californians legislature signed a referendum which transferred the land the cross was on to a private party, but this violates federal guide line and statutes, namely that no government land can be transferred with out having an auction for the said land and having it go to the highest bidder. That never happened, so the land transference was not only void, but also illegal, and could be considered fraud and conspiracy.

Oh and by the way, the atheist who complained was him self a veteran.

Example. The 10 commandments. Or, let's take away the "god" parts on them. Do not murder. Do not lie. Do not steal. All of these are good things, but if any one of these appear anywhere, the loud atheists cry and complain as if they don't like the Bible says about these things.

I have no problem with them putting the 10 commandments in a court house, provided that they also put up the 125th spell from the book of the dead, Forseti's unified code of laws, The Eight I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts, etc... You have to unless your bias.

Why? They represent good things. But if it has any Christian (and only christian in this nation) connotation, then they believe it should be immediately banned just so they don't have to look at it.

I could argue the good things. Tenth commandment anyone? But then I'd be going off on a tangent.

It's not just Christianity it's any religion, and yes this includes non-religion i.e. Atheism. None can be put up because then all would have to be put up. No one is stopping you from putting this stuff up on your own land or in your home, but my tax dollars shouldn't go to your faith.

No one forced anyone. However, the school is directly funding a religous practice. If this were a christian practice, you'd bitch, whine, and complain.

No it's really not. Unless you can provide details and specific events.

Again, only one person complaining which defeats the point you are attempting to make. I do not agree with this, but it is hardly indicative of a legion of whining athiests.

1 written.

I didn't say it was the only. But you get the point don't you? It might just be one person, but these things just keep adding up.

They do not put their trust 'in god' nd to have such a statement on the legal tender of a secular sountry is, frankly, ridiculous. This does not mean it should go, of course, but one can understand why those who are not relgious might object.

If you get rid of "In God we trust", then you would also have to tear down numerous governmental and historical buildings because of religous symbols. You would have to rewrite the constitution if we had it "your" way.

No you wouldn't. No one is suggesting that we tear down old buildings or rewrite anything, just that all new currency be with out the words “In god we trust”. Not hard to do, and certainly not expensive. But hell, you know what, I've got bigger battles to fight then some small words.

You can see the point right? Haha, religion was here first in this country, as far as buildings and symbols go.

And no one is suggesting you get rid of them. And If they did I along with many others atheist would help fight them. Should any new public buildings be built with them? No, but the old ones shouldn't be destroyed.

The issue is not with the commandments themselves (bar of course the overtly religious ones) but with their religious connotations.

EXACTLY!

You know what? I'm offended. I demand you put them back up.

How does it sound? I'm only acting exactly like you.

I agree put them back up, along with the afore mentioned scripts.

Now that I concede is ridculous, but then again so are the religious extremists who claim god created HIV to destroy the 'scourge of homosexuality'.

And how many of those nuts do you hear compared to the others?

Speaking personally I hear them all the time on my campus. They stand in front of the MU scream and preach about hell fire and damnation.

All major Christian holidays are celebrated across the board, including school holidays.

Yes, except you went as far as to ban the name "christmas" and "easter" (for fuck's sake) on calendars.

Which is funny, because they didn't start out as Christian holidays.

---

At 6/29/07 02:28 AM, Memorize wrote: uh huh, sure.

Tell that to the number of law suits.

...absolutely amazing. You actually think that's what I was talking about?

Anyway, what number? 3? 6? Yeah, whooole lot o' lawsuits there! Certainly worth mention!

Did you happen to see the link I posted about proof by example?

Could you comprehend it?

Yeah, but I still don't see any religous person trying to ban "happy hannukah". Or atheist for that matter.

Have you looked?

And i'll still say that those who brought the lawsuits are idiots.

But they're upholding the moral values that this country was founded on! You're such a hypocrite, claiming to be a christian then not actually standing up for those trying to spread the Word.

Doesn't matter anyway, since the issue isn't their idiocy but that you claim there are MORE lawsuits brought by athists about religious matters than by religious people. I'm still waiting for that proof, by the way. Linking to 6 examples isn't proof, I want actual comparisons of total numbers. Otherwise you're full of it.

Even though I should have legal repercussions.

So you think 88% of the population should be registered sex offenders? Gotcha.

k...

What's retarded is pedophiles complaining that they can't live within 1,000 yards of a bus stop.

What the FUCK does that have to do with ANYthing?

No, what's REALLY retarded is wearing green and orange at the same time!

Yet in General...

This is Politics...

And it's those statistics that makes me wish America destroys itself.

If you hate it so much, fucking leave.

Lol, fucking idiot. You never understand anything.

Neither, apparently, do you.

However, this one isn't anywhere remotely as stupid as that school allows other religions to wear religous symbols.

I wasn't aware there was a scale... In fact, since I'm ignorant of this "more retarded/less retarded" measurement you've got going on (especially since it apparently effects the "number" of lawsuits), maybe you should make a list of every lawsuit brought for religious reasons, rate them, then we can score it up and finish the debate once and for all.

Or you could just call me stupid and make yourself giggle.

Anyone want to throw odds on that choice?

You sound like those crack pot guides who talk about the importance of abstract painting.

Interesting viewpoint from someone who claims to work in an art field. Have you even graduated High School yet?

They might, but I won't. Wee!

We were talking about them, not you. And it completely obliterates your point that religious people aren't offended by religious imagery on public buildings.

By your own admission, no less. Thanks.

And if and when that time comes to pass, i'll consider them just as retarded as well.

So you're down with paying for pagan imagery on public buildings?

There were 3 incidents of the world war memorial.
1 incident on the courthouse.
1 incident of the Christmas Tree on Times Squre.
1 incident on using the phrase "merry christmas"

Try 6.

Oh, WELL then. It seems I've been outmaneuvered! SIX whole cases! Well, shit, that's a veritable deluge of them! Them atheists SURE are whiners, all right!

...fucking retard...

Only 1 christmas carol. Which I didn't play a part in.

...you only ever heard one carol and didn't sing along? lmao, sure, bub. Bah-fucking-humbug.

Bullshit.

Yeah,

Well, at least you admit it. Is anything you say ever true?

but what are you going to do about it?

Oh right, ban it.

I'm going to ban you from watching christmas movies? I can DO that? SWEET!

It's not, though you once tried.

I did? Funny, I don't remember ever trying to ban any phrase.

Funny, I don't remember any Supreme Court Case saying that it wasn't protected Speech. DO link to it, though... I'd love to read the decision.

Funny, I don't remember saying anything about the Supreme Court.

See, there's this little thing about "protected speech"... what is and is not determined to be such is decided by this thing we like to call "The Supreme Court". This is because they deal with all legal matters pertaining to the constitution, which is the legal document that says that speech is protected. So when you claim that "merry christmas" is not protected speech, the court must have ruled as such... can you follow the logic, or should I draw a flowchart?

Or maybe you're just a lying sack of shit.

So you admit to being a whiner just because some tv show came on or people sang out on the streets.

.............................................
..yeah.

That's EXACTLY what I'm saying. Does retardation this severe come from genes or repeated blows to the head?

Yeah, it is. Selective Observation here.

Yeah I know. It seems to be rather rampant with your pitiful atheists.

And you and your pathetic christians as well.

Let's see... *looks into profile* Job: Game Art.

Really puttin' that genius IQ to the test, I see.

I fail to see where physics becomes involved.

I know you fail to see it. And I pity your narrow-minded view of things, I really do. So young and naive...

Case and point: Biology, chemistry, physics, earth science = pointless for the majority of high school kids.

Naw. Music, art, history, foreign languages, English lit, english comp and Government are pointless for the majority of High School students. Well, shit, now all we have left is shop class and Football... sounds like a lovely education to me!

Nowai, people have different arguments about stuff!?!?!?

The difference between his and their's is that their's is a double standard.

Then why are you arguing HIM about THEIR view? Argue them.

Sounds like a good plan to me... for college.

Only when they make biology, chemistry, physics, and earth science electives.

They ARE.... in college.

You're the one who seems to think that there needs to be a required belief in order to run for office.

Yup. Totally relevant. Nice deflection, though. You're right, I do believe that presidential candidates should have a firm belief in the validity of science. I'm sorry you don't feel the same. But then you're just another one of those people you hate: ignorant idiots. So I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

No, you go out of your way to belittle them. You're so much better and more mature!

Yep.

You're a funny little kid, you know that. I think you actually believe that belittling others makes you better than them. I'm sure your parents are proud.

More than you, more than 90% of Americans. At least, more mature anyway.

...totally.