NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm sitting here watching Good Morning America and I hear some guy go "Prayers are American values"

..

No.

No they are not.

I just find it funny how people came here for religious freedom, and today the country is run by one single religion.

:rolleyes:

Don't mind me, it's early..

I get what you are saying.

I also get mad when people call me a bigot because I don't think exactly like they do about certain issues, it's sad when people can't talk about their beliefs in a free country because they are in fear of what might happen.

Religion to churches and houses, out of public life.

Fundamentalist of all the world------> fuck you up!:sniper:

I'm sitting here watching Good Morning America and I hear some guy go "Prayers are American values"

..

No.

No they are not.

I just find it funny how people came here for religious freedom, and today the country is run by one single religion.

:rolleyes:

Don't mind me, it's early..

I don't think they went there for religious freedom extending to all religions. They came so they could practice their own religion. And force a couple of natives to do the same, pretty much....

everything the american government does they justify by 'god is on our side'

riiiiiiiiiight

but i dont want to start yet another religious debate... everything turns into religion... deja moo... as in, same s@it - different day

everything the american government does they justify by 'god is on our side'

riiiiiiiiiight

but i dont want to start yet another religious debate... everything turns into religion... deja moo... as in, same s@it - different day

True. It would be so much easier to discuss if people realised the difference between "important to me" and "general issue"

Religion to churches and houses, out of public life.

Fundamentalist of all the world------> fuck you up!:sniper:
i thought churches were public?????

religion out of churches and houses, into the parks! :D then everybody would know which religions are spitting hate...

is this an excuse to get women to take their clothes off in the forest and prance about in circle?... everyone should convert to paganism.... too much nudity for people to get pissed off in that religion

..... tehe

STFU Jesus-freaks, I don't respect your religion, I respect your right to practice your relgion as long as you respect my right to mock it, o yeah, and stop telling us that it's your right to decide who can get married, and quit attacking science...... FUCK CHRISTIANITY

don't mind me either, been awake all night, still awake from yesterday

I'm sitting here watching Good Morning America and I hear some guy go "Prayers are American values"

..

No.

No they are not.

I just find it funny how people came here for religious freedom, and today the country is run by one single religion.

:rolleyes:

Don't mind me, it's early..

no its not ..unless you consider money a religion .

everything the american government does they justify by 'god is on our side'

riiiiiiiiiight

but i dont want to start yet another religious debate... everything turns into religion... deja moo... as in, same s@it - different day


by 'god is on our side'


Bullshit.

STFU Jesus-freaks, I don't respect your religion, I respect your right to practice your relgion as long as you respect my right to mock it, o yeah, and stop telling us that it's your right to decide who can get married, and quit attacking science...... FUCK CHRISTIANITY

don't mind me either, been awake all night, still awake from yesterday

we weren't arguing for or against religion.....go get some sleep man!.. and make sure you get up on the right side of the bed in the morning :)

no its not ..unless you consider money a religion .
i think he meant that top government members are all supposedly christian... don't know if that is the case but that's the idea i get...

i think he meant that government members are all supposedly christian...

Well, at least they seem to be catching votes by posing as Christians, if nothing else.

Bullshit.

I'm sorry... bush must be miming at every press conference that's broadcast over here because i'm sure 9 times out of ten he mentions 'in gods will' or 'the lord is on our side' or something to that effect

not that i care - just making an observation

STFU Jesus-freaks, I don't respect your religion, I respect your right to practice your relgion as long as you respect my right to mock it, o yeah, and stop telling us that it's your right to decide who can get married, and quit attacking science...... FUCK CHRISTIANITY

don't mind me either, been awake all night, still awake from yesterday
we can tell :headbang:

no its not ..unless you consider money a religion .
I guess I meant the morals the government uses to run the country.

They are definitly religious.

I guess I meant the morals the government uses to run the country.

They are definitly religious.

seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

so ner whatshisface

i'm SO mature today.. like.. totally

I get what you are saying.

I also get mad when people call me a bigot because I don't think exactly like they do about certain issues, it's sad when people can't talk about their beliefs in a free country because they are in fear of what might happen.
True :(

seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

so ner whatshisface

i'm SO mature today.. like.. totally
Ya high? :p

I guess I meant the morals the government uses to run the country.

They are definitly religious.

Well considering the vast majority of American citizens represent some religion or another and we are a government of the people by the people and for the people...where else would they get their morals ?

I guess we could try to get a few athiest elected but its going to be hard to find enough votes .

Ya high? :p

i wish!!

Religion in America is the new KKK, people fear to speak out against it lest A.They go to hell B. Some religious crackpot come kill them.

And politicians are wahaaayyyyyyyy to afraid to piss off the religious community (Smaller than it appears) so we'll keep having a Conservative valued government with slightly different opinions on the economy.

usual bullshit, watch the god channel and see those evangelicals in action, a lot of americans are being duped, by their government and by religious charlatans. that said most religious leaders are charlatans. but "the praise jesus, now give us your money" crowd are especially dubious.

ruff... look what you did... another religious forum

how about 'whats youre fave childhood movie and why'... something feel good and upbeat...pompoms and rara skirts and soda and suga and hyperness

regression is the key to not caring if god will strike me down for stealing john middletons jolly ranchers

STFU Jesus-freaks, I don't respect your religion, I respect your right to practice your relgion as long as you respect my right to mock it, o yeah, and stop telling us that it's your right to decide who can get married, and quit attacking science...... FUCK CHRISTIANITY

don't mind me either, been awake all night, still awake from yesterday

Yes, here is a post deserving of respect.:rolleyes:

Well, at least they seem to be catching votes by posing as Christians, if nothing else.<-- Bingo.

Yes, here is a post deserving of respect.:rolleyes:

Yippee wheeeeeeee!

*continues to run around the quad dripping jello everywhere*

Now back to your regularly scheduled tele-evangelist program.

Oh great, just what the world needs, more dimwitted teenagers complaining about affairs they don't even begin to understand. Totally content to whine about religion, and totally ignorant of the fact that they are just trying to supplant their own view system onto the entire world. Behold, Atheism, the new religion of the world! Instead of following Priests and God blindly, we'll follow scientists and crazied theories blindly. How many of you people have actually SEEN the nucleus of an Atom? None. But that doesn't stop you from believing in it. None of you have gone out and checked every scientific theory or fact, you just have FAITH in the system. Well pardon me, before you start criticizing the wack-job fundamentalists, I'd look in the mirror.

"Fundamentalist of all the world------> fuck you up!"

Gee, there are the words of an enlightened individual.

"STFU Jesus-freaks, I don't respect your religion, I respect your right to practice your relgion as long as you respect my right to mock it, o yeah, and stop telling us that it's your right to decide who can get married, and quit attacking science...... FUCK CHRISTIANITY"

Oh yes, give that fellow a medal for forward thinking!

"I just find it funny how people came here for religious freedom, and today the country is run by one single religion."

HAAHAAHAH, this genius doesn't even know the history of the country he is talking about.

Well, at least they seem to be catching votes by posing as Christians, if nothing else.
hence why i said supposedly christians :D

Religion to churches and houses, out of public life.

Fundamentalist of all the world------> fuck you up!:sniper:
How very ... democratic of you. :rolleyes:

Oh great, just what the world needs, more dimwitted teenagers complaining about affairs they don't even begin to understand. Totally content to whine about religion, and totally ignorant of the fact that they are just trying to supplant their own view system onto the entire world. Behold, Atheism, the new religion of the world! Instead of following Priests and God blindly, we'll follow scientists and crazied theories blindly. How many of you people have actually SEEN the nucleus of an Atom? None. But that doesn't stop you from believing in it. None of you have gone out and checked every scientific theory or fact, you just have FAITH in the system. Well pardon me, before you start criticizing the wack-job fundamentalists, I'd look in the mirror.

"Fundamentalist of all the world------> fuck you up!"

Gee, there are the words of an enlightened individual.

"STFU Jesus-freaks, I don't respect your religion, I respect your right to practice your relgion as long as you respect my right to mock it, o yeah, and stop telling us that it's your right to decide who can get married, and quit attacking science...... FUCK CHRISTIANITY"

Oh yes, give that fellow a medal for forward thinking!

"I just find it funny how people came here for religious freedom, and today the country is run by one single religion."

HAAHAAHAH, this genius doesn't even know the history of the country he is talking about.

Err... I don't you can actually SEE the nucleus of an atom. It's beyond the resolution of light microscopes. And most electron microscopes except some of them new fangled atomic force thingys. Maybe beyond those too.

Still the nucleus of an atom certainly exists. Elegantly demonstrated in nuclear weapons. No thanks to you motherfuckers who used it nuke defenseless farmers in a certain unnamed country. :upyours:

is this an excuse to get women to take their clothes off in the forest and prance about in circle?... everyone should convert to paganism.... too much nudity for people to get pissed off in that religion

..... tehe
YES! and an excuse to get men to take off their clothes as well... :D

Well considering the vast majority of American citizens represent some religion or another and we are a government of the people by the people and for the people...where else would they get their morals ?
Good morals would be nice for the country, but certain morals that are the majority are one sided BS.

The majority being christians, stand only for christians and make everyone else go bye their set of morals.

You can get morals from other places than a book, you know.

I guess we could try to get a few athiest elected but its going to be hard to find enough votes .
I think an athiest might be less biased.. hm..

Well, at least they seem to be catching votes by posing as Christians, if nothing else.
Yes, that seems to be going around.

seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

so ner whatshisface

i'm SO mature today.. like.. totally
You're SO incomprehensible today ... like ... totally. :rolleyes:

Oh great, just what the world needs, more dimwitted teenagers complaining about affairs they don't even begin to understand. Totally content to whine about religion, and totally ignorant of the fact that they are just trying to supplant their own view system onto the entire world. Behold, Atheism, the new religion of the world! Instead of following Priests and God blindly, we'll follow scientists and crazied theories blindly. How many of you people have actually SEEN the nucleus of an Atom? None. But that doesn't stop you from believing in it. None of you have gone out and checked every scientific theory or fact, you just have FAITH in the system. Well pardon me, before you start criticizing the wack-job fundamentalists, I'd look in the mirror.

"Fundamentalist of all the world------> fuck you up!"

Gee, there are the words of an enlightened individual.

"STFU Jesus-freaks, I don't respect your religion, I respect your right to practice your relgion as long as you respect my right to mock it, o yeah, and stop telling us that it's your right to decide who can get married, and quit attacking science...... FUCK CHRISTIANITY"

Oh yes, give that fellow a medal for forward thinking!

"I just find it funny how people came here for religious freedom, and today the country is run by one single religion."

HAAHAAHAH, this genius doesn't even know the history of the country he is talking about.
Behold the fundies.

YES! and an excuse to get men to take off their clothes as well... :D

yeah but their wobbly bits aren't as attractive as ours!

You're SO incomprehensible today ... like ... totally. :rolleyes:

overworked, underpaid, and sleep deprived... what else can i say :D

True :(
I disagree. I live in the heart of the Bible Belt and I speak my mind quite regularly. The only "negative consequences" of which I am aware is that some fundamentalists tend to avoid me. I don't see this as a "bad thing!" :D

overworked, underpaid, and sleep deprived... what else can i say :D
No much. My condolences! :)

No much. My condolences! :)

*sniff*... thank you... you dont know how much it means to me to finally be understood....

Oh great, just what the world needs, more dimwitted teenagers complaining about affairs they don't even begin to understand. Totally content to whine about religion, and totally ignorant of the fact that they are just trying to supplant their own view system onto the entire world. Behold, Atheism, the new religion of the world! Instead of following Priests and God blindly, we'll follow scientists and crazied theories blindly. How many of you people have actually SEEN the nucleus of an Atom? None. But that doesn't stop you from believing in it. None of you have gone out and checked every scientific theory or fact, you just have FAITH in the system. Well pardon me, before you start criticizing the wack-job fundamentalists, I'd look in the mirror.

"Fundamentalist of all the world------> fuck you up!"

Gee, there are the words of an enlightened individual.

"STFU Jesus-freaks, I don't respect your religion, I respect your right to practice your relgion as long as you respect my right to mock it, o yeah, and stop telling us that it's your right to decide who can get married, and quit attacking science...... FUCK CHRISTIANITY"

Oh yes, give that fellow a medal for forward thinking!

"I just find it funny how people came here for religious freedom, and today the country is run by one single religion."

HAAHAAHAH, this genius doesn't even know the history of the country he is talking about.
You might want to look into the "quote" function some time, honey.

Behold the fundies.

*Tries to behold them, but their excessive wobbliness throws off Xisla's hands*

Arrrggggggghhhhhhh!

*continues to streak quad while a few bemused bobbies look on*

yeah but their wobbly bits aren't as attractive as ours!
that depends on who's looking...

"beauty is in the eye of the beholder" :D

Err... I don't you can actually SEE the nucleus of an atom. It's beyond the resolution of light microscopes. And most electron microscopes except some of them new fangled atomic force thingys. Maybe beyond those too.

Still the nucleus of an atom certainly exists. Elegantly demonstrated in nuclear weapons. No thanks to you motherfuckers who used it nuke defenseless farmers in a certain unnamed country. :upyours:
Defensless? Aaaahahahahahahhahahhahaha!

that depends on who's looking...

"beauty is in the eye of the beholder" :D

this is true

i didn't say they weren't..... oh i know what i meant and that's all that matters!

*sniff*... thank you... you dont know how much it means to me to finally be understood....
LOL! Uh ... I don't know what to say to that! OMG! :eek:

I disagree. I live in the heart of the Bible Belt and I speak my mind quite regularly. The only "negative consequences" of which I am aware is that some fundamentalists tend to avoid me. I don't see this as a "bad thing!" :D
:p

Never a bad thing!

this is true

i didn't say they weren't..... oh i know what i meant and that's all that matters!
i know what you mean as well... you don't like men's wobbly bits as much as you like women's hehehe

i'm sure a few women disagree with you... hehehe

Defensless? Aaaahahahahahahhahahhahaha!

Indeed. I laugh at your typo too.

:p

Never a bad thing!
:D

Speak your mind! The only thing you have to lose is fundie support! :D

LOL! Uh ... I don't know what to say to that! OMG! :eek:

:eek: @ you being speachless.... hell will freeze over

oh wait...now that's not to say i believe in hell you understand... oh i know.. i'll make it a PC statement:

"a very hot inhospitable and uninhabital place will switch to the other extreame and be so bloody cold that eyelashes would freeze and snap off"

i know what you mean as well... you don't like men's wobbly bits as much as you like women's hehehe

i'm sure a few women disagree with you... hehehe

noooooooooooo i like mens wobbly bits - i'm female, i like them very much, when they're not so wobbly - what i mean is they're not as 'pretty' to look at.. but that's just my opinion... each to their own!

I disagree. I live in the heart of the Bible Belt and I speak my mind quite regularly. The only "negative consequences" of which I am aware is that some fundamentalists tend to avoid me. I don't see this as a "bad thing!" :D
i love when fundamentalists call me insane! :D

"It's beyond the resolution of light microscopes."

So in otherwords, something is beyond your capacity to experience, so you must take a leap of faith and trust an instrument you believe can reveal to you that something which is beyond you. The only difference between that and believing in a religion is the amount of materials which can be "proven" to you. I don't doubt the existance of nuclear weaponary, I just understand that there aspects of it which require me to look beyond myself and my senses to understand.

"Behold the fundies."

I'm a bi-sexual, Buddhist, Batcaver. Don't give me that bullshit.

"Good morals would be nice for the country, but certain morals that are the majority are one sided BS."

So let me get this straight. A country should be run (I am inferring) democractically, by one said of "good morals", but when those morals reflect the majority, and are not all inclusive, they are bullshit. WHAT?

"I think an athiest might be less biased.. hm.."

An atheist is more biased.

"You might want to look into the "quote" function some time, honey."

It takes too much space, and if you are too much of a lazy ass to read the entire thread, that is your problem not mine.

:eek: @ you being speachless.... hell will freeze over

oh wait...now that's not to say i believe in hell you understand... oh i know.. i'll make it a PC statement:

"a very hot inhospitable and uninhabital place will switch to the other extreame and be so bloody cold that eyelashes would freeze and snap off"
LMAO! Uh ... that's a rather long way 'round to say "OMG! Eutrusca rendered speechless!" :D

noooooooooooo i like mens wobbly bits - i'm female, i like them very much, when they're not so wobbly - what i mean is they're not as 'pretty' to look at.. but that's just my opinion... each to their own!
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :D

you made it sound like you like them they are hard... i'm just teasing you ;)

[QUOTE=Weasel"You might want to look into the "quote" function some time, honey."

It takes too much space, and if you are too much of a lazy ass to read the entire thread, that is your problem not mine.[/QUOTE]
Now, now. Don't be raggin' on Smukee. She'll sic her uber-intelligent kids on ya! Mwahahahaha! :D

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :D

you made it sound like you like them they are hard... i'm just teasing you ;)

i got my point across then :P

and i knooooooow u are...

i'm having fun today... too much naggin in the world.. have a little fun people

i love when fundamentalists call me insane! :D
"Sanity," like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. :D

"Sanity," like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. :D

lack of sanity, is in the eye of the beer holder

It takes too much space, and if you are too much of a lazy ass to read the entire thread, that is your problem not mine.

Well, someone's made a good start on the board.

All hail king/queen Weasel!

lack of sanity, is in the eye of the beer holder
LOL! You're really on a roll this morning, ain't ya? :D

LOL! You're really on a roll this morning, ain't ya? :D

yup... keep em coming :P

Oh great, just what the world needs, more dimwitted teenagers complaining about affairs they don't even begin to understand. Being a teenager (well an old one i'll admit) I think you underestermate my understanding of global affairs. It is important that you are considering I and many other "teenagers" will be inheriting this world.

Totally content to whine about religion, and totally ignorant of the fact that they are just trying to supplant their own view system onto the entire world. Behold, Atheism, the new religion of the world!
atheism is not a religion.
Instead of following Priests and God blindly, we'll follow scientists and crazied theories blindly. How many of you people have actually SEEN the nucleus of an Atom?
Science is not a religion, science is mearly a way of observing the universe in a logical way, it has done far better than any religion has. May I also remind you that it is because of science that you have the ability to post this message. You cannot simply dismiss something because you cannot "see" it, you cannot see air, yet it exists. Let me put it to you then, do you have any visible evidence of God, surely by your logic god doesn't exist because you cant see him.

None. But that doesn't stop you from believing in it. None of you have gone out and checked every scientific theory or fact, you just have FAITH in the system.
Science unlike religion doesn't require faith. All theories must be tested to exist and many theories have been debunked because testing has made contradictory outcomes. Science doesn't demmand faith, heck it demmands the opposite, it demmands that all theories be tested. Science suggests that in the end all theories are falsifiable, theories aren't there to say exactly what happened but to find the most accurate answer. Science is by far the best method of observing the universe.

Well pardon me, before you start criticizing the wack-job fundamentalists, I'd look in the mirror.
While I'll admit that other posters have been a bit rude they are correct in most points. America was created as a secular and free nation, it is sad to sya the least that all the people that have died for those rights and liberties have died in vain because of relgious fundamentalism.

yup... keep em coming :P
I would love to, but real life ( whatever THAT may be! ) intrudes, sadly. :(

I would love to, but real life ( whatever THAT may be! ) intrudes, sadly. :(

real life... oh man...i thought this pc they gave me at work was to entertain me, i didnt realise i was supposed to be working on it...

my bad

... bu yeah.. i get ya

"You might want to look into the "quote" function some time, honey."

It takes too much space, and if you are too much of a lazy ass to read the entire thread, that is your problem not mine. If people hadn't read the entire thread, chances would be slim your quotes would have even been recognized as such. So, nah. *pats*

Being a teenager (well an old one i'll admit) I think you underestermate my understanding of global affairs. It is important that you are considering I and many other "teenagers" will be inheriting this world.

atheism is not a religion.

Science is not a religion, science is mearly a way of observing the universe in a logical way, it has done far better than any religion has. May I also remind you that it is because of science that you have the ability to post this message. You cannot simply dismiss something because you cannot "see" it, you cannot see air, yet it exists. Let me put it to you then, do you have any visible evidence of God, surely by your logic god doesn't exist because you cant see him.

Science unlike religion doesn't require faith. All theories must be tested to exist and many theories have been debunked because testing has made contradictory outcomes. Science doesn't demmand faith, heck it demmands the opposite, it demmands that all theories be tested. Science suggests that in the end all theories are falsifiable, theories aren't there to say exactly what happened but to find the most accurate answer. Science is by far the best method of observing the universe.

While I'll admit that other posters have been a bit rude they are correct in most points. America was created as a secular and free nation, it is sad to sya the least that all the people that have died for those rights and liberties have died in vain because of relgious fundamentalism.
How does "religious fundamentalism" negate the service of others??

Atheism is a philosophical position which defines itself as being in oppostion to something else. Perhaps that's why it's a minority position?

If people hadn't read the entire thread, chances would be slim your quotes would have even been recognized as such. So, nah. *pats*
:p

M'thinks the person is lazy.

How does "religious fundamentalism" negate the service of others??

Atheism is a philosophical position which defines itself as being in oppostion to something else. Perhaps that's why it's a minority position?

i love it when you talk filth :D

I'm sitting here watching Good Morning America and I hear some guy go "Prayers are American values"

..

No.

No they are not.

I just find it funny how people came here for religious freedom, and today the country is run by one single religion.

:rolleyes:

Don't mind me, it's early..

I don't think the Pilgrim Fathers left Plymouth to found an atheist society.
They wanted to found a more strictly Christian society than England.

Don't like it? Try North Korea.

i love it when you talk filth :D
LMAO! Girl ( ? ) ... you jus' ain't right! LOL!

LMAO! Girl ( ? ) ... you jus' ain't right! LOL!

i know... :headbang:

Religion is a human phenomenon that defies easy definition. It is commonly understood as a group of beliefs or attitudes concerning an object (real or imagined), person (real or imagined), or system of thought

does that not cover just about anything anyone could believe in anywhere on earth?

I'm a bi-sexual, Buddhist, Batcaver. Don't give me that bullshit.


Now I know you are lying. I am Buddhist, and the way you are acting is not of Buddhist behavior. Drop your ego, then you can start practicing to become Buddhist.

atheism is not a religion.
"atheism not being a religion is in the eye of the atheist" :D
You cannot simply dismiss something because you cannot "see" it, you cannot see air, yet it exists.
you just proved how atheism is dogmatic. according to your own words, you cannot simply dismiss God because you cannot "see" it.
Science unlike religion doesn't require faith. All theories must be tested to exist and many theories have been debunked because testing has made contradictory outcomes.
ever heard the word "hypothesis"?
Science doesn't demmand faith, heck it demmands the opposite, it demmands that all theories be tested.
hypothesis are still part of science and are not based on observations. can you see gravity or have you got absolute evidence that the observations we relate to this force are not due to electromagnetism (or another explanation)? theories are not law. they try to offer the most accurate answer but they can be proved wrong at later times, despite having been based on observations.
Science suggests that in the end all theories are falsifiable, theories aren't there to say exactly what happened but to find the most accurate answer. Science is by far the best method of observing the universe.
i would disagree this is always true. i believe the best method is that which embraces both science and faith equally. Oppenheimer was ridiculed for his interest in religion but he was the first man to write about black-holes and about how the merger of two neutron stars could form a black-hole (never mind that he lead the building of the first atom bombs). these writings could not have been based on observations. the fact that he embraced both science and religion gave him a much more open mind.
While I'll admit that other posters have been a bit rude they are correct in most points. America was created as a secular and free nation, it is sad to sya the least that all the people that have died for those rights and liberties have died in vain because of relgious fundamentalism.
if you lived in a truly secular society you would either have an atheist/agnostic president or an administration made up of a mix of members from several faiths and atheists.

Now I know you are lying. I am Buddhist, and the way you are acting is not of Buddhist behavior. Drop your ego, then you can start practicing to become Buddhist.

well said digi dave... i can call you digi dave cant i?

"Being a teenager (well an old one i'll admit) I think you underestermate my understanding of global affairs. It is important that you are considering I and many other "teenagers" will be inheriting this world."

Hahahahahaha. Remind me to avoid going to the doctor's office when I'm old. Sorry about under "estermating" you. When you know nothing about a situation, its better to assume that everything is wrong and wait till you know what is right. After reading what you say, I'll probably apologize.

"atheism is not a religion."

Depends. Is it not a series of beliefs and approaches to existance and the nature of that existance? You may not do things in the "Traditional" religious manner, but it is more or less a religion. They have meetings, they talk about how everyone who doesn't believe what they do is silly, they discuss existance. Its all pretty much the same thing....

"Science is not a religion, science is mearly a way of observing the universe in a logical way"

On its own. Science does not exist on its own. Futhermore, "logic" is a belief system in itself. Science presupposes that all things in nature are subject to human understanding. Many times logic doesn't even come into play. Where was the logic in the belief that humans had areas of their skull which could be measured to determine their personality?

"May I also remind you that it is because of science that you have the ability to post this message."

To a degree, but you've missed my point. I'm not arguing that Science is wrong. Its somewhat ironic the way you put it though. Its not because of human ingenuity, or various inventors. No, its "Science" an abstract concept. Sort of like when those "fundies" say we have have cars because of God, and not because of men.

"it has done far better than any religion has."

And where exactly has that gotten man? As much as atheists may hate to admit it, but science has gotten us relatively nowhere. People are still starving, suffering, ignorant, and now we've got a whole new batch of problems, from nuclear weapons to global warming to worry about. I don't deny that Science has provided us with more understanding of the material world, I am going to point out that Science is NOT the end of all knowledge and understanding, for if it were, we would not have the problems we do today. THAT is my problem. Every conversation about existance ends with someone citing Science this and Science that. So you came up with a theory that fits an incredibily limited amount of data. Why exactly are we treating that is the undoubtable truth?

"Science unlike religion doesn't require faith."

Yes it does. It requires faith in the simplicity of the universe, man's ability to understand, the concreteness of our data, and an understable nature of the world.

"Science doesn't demmand faith, heck it demmands the opposite, it demmands that all theories be tested."

It requires followers to believe that the given tests are enough to prove the truth of a theory, and that a false theory could not pass a test.

"Science is by far the best method of observing the universe."

Because you say so, and because you in your infinite knowledge have known every approach to exist possible in all that is?

"Let me put it to you then, do you have any visible evidence of God, surely by your logic god doesn't exist because you cant see him."

That isn't my logic, that is the Atheist's logic. Thats my very point. There are things which we know exist but cannot prove through our senses.

"it is sad to sya the least that all the people that have died for those rights and liberties have died in vain because of relgious fundamentalism."

What ARE you talking about? Calvinists strangles the indians, enslaved the blacks, and left the asians to die working on American railroads. America may have been founded on the premise that people should be allowed to believe what they want, but intention and actuality are two different stories.

"Now I know you are lying. I am Buddhist, and the way you are acting is not of Buddhist behavior. Drop your ego, then you can start practicing to become Buddhist."

Nope. As a Buddhist, you should recognize that, that particular term is a catch all phrase, and furthermore the Buddhist thought is merely the beginning to understanding, and not the end. I don't believe in the Ego, that is silly western talk.

"believe the best method is that embraces both science and faith equally."

Agreed.

The problem with Science is that it does not deal with ethics. It is based on knowledge, not wisdom. Some strict religious will ignore science so that it doesn't harm their belief system, but they should embrace it. Those who are strictly science shouldn't ignore religion as well. We arn't all Christian, there are other religions out there that are man-centered and mold with the facts that are discovered through Science, like Buddhism.

Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity"

Albert Einstein

"Now I know you are lying. I am Buddhist, and the way you are acting is not of Buddhist behavior. Drop your ego, then you can start practicing to become Buddhist."

Nope. As a Buddhist, you should recognize that, that particular term is a catch all phrase, and furthermore the Buddhist thought is merely the beginning to understanding, and not the end. I don't believe in the Ego, that is silly western talk.

I am sorry, but i got that impression from you when you implyed someone is a 'lazy ass' for not reading the whole thread. As a Buddhist, you should understand that she was pointing out there was a better way to quote others. There was no need to get defensive about it, it was your ego that got in your way.

yeah but their wobbly bits aren't as attractive as ours!

True, ours may not be as attractive, but equality is equality. :D



I disagree. I live in the heart of the Bible Belt and I speak my mind quite regularly. The only "negative consequences" of which I am aware is that some fundamentalists tend to avoid me. I don't see this as a "bad thing!" :D

I find that a few hard questions about reality tends to drive them away. That or a few "remember, Satan loves you!":D

[QUOTE=Big Jim P]True, ours may not be as attractive, but equality is equality. :D



lol@equality - you go.. erm.. guy.. i'm assuming you're a guy.. name like Jim.. *shrug*

we have really perverted this thread. :D

"In summary, it may be said that almost every known culture involves the religious in the above sense of a depth dimension in cultural experiences at all levels — a push, whether ill-defined or conscious, toward some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life. When more or less distinct patterns of behaviour are built around this depth dimension in a culture, this structure constitutes religion in its historically recognizable form. Religion is the organization of life around the depth dimensions of experience — varied in form, completeness, and clarity in accordance with the environing culture."

(Winston King, Encyclopedia of Religion)

"I am sorry, but i got that impression from you when you implyed someone is a 'lazy ass' for not reading the whole thread. As a Buddhist, you should understand that she was pointing out there was a better way to quote others. There was no need to get defensive about it, it was your ego that got in your way."

Ironic. (I am never sure if I use that word properly). You criticize me for responding "with an ego" to a series of assumptions on her part, while acknowledging that you've done the same.

The term "dear" has a patronizing connotation in my mind.
She assumed that I was unexperienced and not perspective enough to notice the quoting option.

"Better" is relative. If I thought that was better, I would have used it.

As a Buddhist, I am not a Buddhist. So don't talk to me like I am one.

And where exactly has that gotten man? As much as atheists may hate to admit it, but science has gotten us relatively nowhere. People are still starving, suffering, ignorant, and now we've got a whole new batch of problems, from nuclear weapons to global warming to worry about.


'Relatively nowhere'

Relative to what? The Neanderthals? The Vulcans? God?

'Starving, suffering, ignorant'

As if 'science' applied without monetary incentive couldn't feed the world? We make enough food three times over to do this.

'Suffering' what? What vague, nebulous concept is that? I'm suffering from a vague feeling of ennui at the moment. Come help me spirituality!!

'Ignorant' - Ignorant of what?

Reading your posts is like riding the 'escalator that goes nowhere' on the Simpsons.

we have really perverted this thread. :D

... yeah but i think we can do better

[QUOTE=Big Jim P]True, ours may not be as attractive, but equality is equality. :D



lol@equality - you go.. erm.. guy.. i'm assuming you're a guy.. name like Jim.. *shrug*

*Reaches down to check on the boys*

Yep, still a guy.:D

[QUOTE=Mstreeted]

*Reaches down to check on the boys*

Yep, still a guy.:D

well i'd hate to think it would fall off in the middle of the night

stranger things have happened... i think

As if 'science' applied without monetary incentive couldn't feed the world?
precisely why moderate religion is needed, since it seems to be the major force these days talking about sharing and charity...

precisely why religion is needed, since religion seems to be the major force these days talking about sharing and charity...

I'm not religious and I'm talking about sharing and charity. But I'm not a major force, I'll admit.

Not yet, anyway.

"Relative to what? The Neanderthals? The Vulcans? God?"

Social unity, enlightment, and peace. Futhermore, unless you are talking about about Volcanos, those aren't places.

"As if 'science' applied without monetary incentive couldn't feed the world? We make enough food three times over to do this."

If science could do that, it already would have. We all use science in our lives, we study it at school, and since those things still exist, there is obviously more to the problem then Science currently has a solution for. When Science makes monetary incentive a thing of the past, then we'll have progress.

"'Suffering' what? What vague, nebulous concept is that? I'm suffering from a vague feeling of ennui at the moment. Come help me spirituality!!"

I was not attempting to list every form of suffering on the planet. Emotional, Spiritual, Physical, Social. The list goes on.

"Reading your posts is like riding the 'escalator that goes nowhere' on the Simpsons."

Maybe because you can't seem to get past the basic meaning of words.

[QUOTE=Big Jim P]

well i'd hate to think it would fall off in the middle of the night

stranger things have happened... i think

They probably wouldn't fall off, but they have been known to wander around on their own from time to time.:eek:

[QUOTE=Mstreeted]

They probably wouldn't fall off, but they have been known to wander around on their own from time to time.:eek:

like that beer add where the tongue leaves that guys mouth and goes to a pary and picks up a beer?... got that's a weird add...

'wonder around'.. lol.. as if

I'm not religious and I'm talking about sharing and charity. But I'm not a major force, I'll admit.

Not yet, anyway.
then you have "God" inside you, you just don't feel the need to put a name to it.

very few of us though... i don't believe in God either; i just don't dismiss it...

I got an american value for you...leave me the fuck alone. If I dont want to pray I sure as hell am not going to.

"I am sorry, but i got that impression from you when you implyed someone is a 'lazy ass' for not reading the whole thread. As a Buddhist, you should understand that she was pointing out there was a better way to quote others. There was no need to get defensive about it, it was your ego that got in your way."

Ironic. (I am never sure if I use that word properly). You criticize me for responding "with an ego" to a series of assumptions on her part, while acknowledging that you've done the same.

The term "dear" has a patronizing connotation in my mind.
She assumed that I was unexperienced and not perspective enough to notice the quoting option.

"Better" is relative. If I thought that was better, I would have used it.

As a Buddhist, I am not a Buddhist. So don't talk to me like I am one.

No, I still see you have the ego you claim not to have. I wasn't assuming, I already knew it. The impression you give shows it.

An impression is not knowledge. You seem to have nothing to say, other than attempting to criticize me.

An impression is not knowledge. You seem to have nothing to say, other than attempting to criticize me.

I had to do it ;)

lol everyone has an ego

Easily seen is the fault of others,
But one's own is hard to see
The faults of others
He winnows like chaff;
But conceals his own,
As a shrewd gambler, the defeating throw

--Dhammapada 252

Now stop hitting people with the Buddhist stick. it's naughty :P

lol everyone has an ego

Easily seen is the fault of others,
But one's own is hard to see
The faults of others
He winnows like chaff;
But conceals his own,
As a shrewd gambler, the defeating throw

--Dhammapada 252

Now stop hitting people with the Buddhist stick. it's naughty :P
What if you push them off a cliff and into the Buddha tree so that they hit every branch on the way down?

What if you push them off a cliff and into the Buddha tree so that they hit every branch on the way down?

you're not called Desperate Measures for no reason are ya? :p

you're not called Desperate Measures for no reason are ya? :p

Uh-huh... but what the fiddlestick is Mstreeted?

Uh-huh... but what the fiddlestick is Mstreeted?

Ms Treeted

Mistreated

play on words

old nick i never bothered to change :)

Happy?

you're not called Desperate Measures for no reason are ya? :p
Desperation is my usual state on these forums. :)

Ms Treeted

Mistreated

play on words

old nick i never bothered to change :)

Happy?

No! *VERY unhappy indeed*

No! *VERY unhappy indeed*

... well with a name like bogmarsh i'm not surprised.. i bet your socks are very soggy

:p

... well with a name like bogmarsh i'm not surprised.. i bet your socks are very soggy

:p

*nods* besides, I have to listen to the insane rantings of Ian Paysley...

*nods* besides, I have to listen to the insane rantings of Ian Paysley...

Who?

*googles it*

lemme guess.. the professional bigot?

lemme guess.. the professional bigot?

*nods* BogMarsh is kinda sorta Ulster-as-dreamed-of-by-he-who-must-not-be-named.

Didn't really work out.
I'm not into fundamentalism.
But Bogmarsh IS a capitalist paradise!

*nods* BogMarsh is kinda sorta Ulster-as-dreamed-of-by-he-who-must-not-be-named.

Didn't really work out.
I'm not into fundamentalism.
But Bogmarsh IS a capitalist paradise!

wtg?


:confused:

I been on here too long today

wtg?


:confused:

I been on here too long today


Do you have a nationstate?

Do you have a nationstate?

yup

last time i checked by economy was 'basket case'

i was impressed

Dictatorship of mstreeted

yup

last time i checked by economy was 'basket case'

i was impressed

Dictatorship of mstreeted

We're unhappy - but RICH!
*wipes tears away with 100dollar bills*

Just getting back to the original topic for a second (just joined the thread and was lazy, only read the first three pages and then the last two) ...

I sometimes think what Christianity needs is a good bout of worldwide persecution. Christians have gotten way too full of themselves since they took over western civilization back in the 4th century. I think everyone in the US should be required to perform a public sacrifice, say to the the Flag (since it's at least a quasi-holy object these days), and anyone who doesn't is fined or perhaps has his or her tax rate increased. I'm not sure I'd go as far as executions, ubt punishment is certainly in order. This would allow Christianity to raise up a whole new crop of saints and martyrs.

[Science has gotten us nowhere near, relatively,]Social unity, enlightment, and peace. Futhermore, unless you are talking about about Volcanos, those aren't places.

Yeah Ok. So, as pointed out before, the internet isn't improving social unity? Affordable housing/insulation/water systems/healthcare aren't improving social systems? Relative to enlightenment? Since the only 'enlightenment' it could possibly be 'relative' to is the reformation, I think we've advanced from there. 'Relatively' of course. As for peace, I think science is the only thing that's going to make it happen - because unless we all get an equal share of resources, we'll have to remove eny and greed from our psyches. Do you think religion will be able to do that? Can you provide any proof?

"As if 'science' applied without monetary incentive couldn't feed the world? We make enough food three times over to do this."

If science could do that, it already would have. We all use science in our lives, we study it at school, and since those things still exist, there is obviously more to the problem then Science currently has a solution for. When Science makes monetary incentive a thing of the past, then we'll have progress.

No. you don't get it. But that's ok, because you're only a 'teenager ahead of his time' or something. Science can do it, but it's down to the will of man to make it happen - which is where religion could step in, granted. But let's be honest. On the basis of the past two thousand yeays, will religion help anyone but its own? I'm not sure.



I was not attempting to list every form of suffering on the planet. Emotional, Spiritual, Physical, Social. The list goes on.

Yes, you just used 'suffering' in some weird, abstract way. Maybe define your statements? Any solutions you'd like to posit?

"Reading your posts is like riding the 'escalator that goes nowhere' on the Simpsons."

Maybe because you can't seem to get past the basic meaning of words.

Roffle.

Let's take a look at your previous posts:

Sorry about under "estermating" you

Nice bit of sarcasm there. Well used. So let's look at your spelling, punctuation and lexical mistakes:

(I am inferring) democractically
existance and the nature of that existance
No, its "Science" an abstract concept
you in your infinite knowledge have known every approach to exist possible in all that is?
when you implyed someone
unexperienced

And the coup de grace:

I'm a bi-sexual, Buddhist, Batcaver. Don't give me that bullshit

As a Buddhist, I am not a Buddhist. So don't talk to me like I am one

You're great!! Welcome to NS!! :D

We're unhappy - but RICH!
*wipes tears away with 100dollar bills*

do you have one?

do you have one?

Yup.
Armed Republic of Bogmarsh!

Yup.
Armed Republic of Bogmarsh!

nice flag

I'm sitting here watching Good Morning America and I hear some guy go "Prayers are American values"

..

No.

No they are not.

I just find it funny how people came here for religious freedom, and today the country is run by one single religion.

:rolleyes:

Don't mind me, it's early..
*Shudder*

Superstition is not an "American value," any more than speeding is an "American value" simply because a lot of Americans do it.

Now, now. Don't be raggin' on Smukee. She'll sic her uber-intelligent kids on ya! Mwahahahaha! :D
nobody is raggin' on me, I have a puppet, and that's not it, you shall fear Smunkee's puppet, and nobody will ever figure it out..........HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

[/insanity]

nice flag

I'll have to make a cooler one, some day...

I'll have to make a cooler one, some day...

mines just barb wire... got to keep them in somehow

I got an american value for you...leave me the fuck alone. If I dont want to pray I sure as hell am not going to.
if Zen Accord is the muppet of Kazus, as this enlightened post and both nations' profile seem to suggest, then allow me to answer you both in one go; i don't pray; i read and learn. if that is the case (and i don't really expect you to confirm this anyway) i suggest you learn how to read other people's posts and - more - stop hiding behind muppets like a coward.

if i'm wrong ZA, i am sorry, and this reply is directed to Kazus only: not all people that read Jesus or quote him in a signature believe in God, pray or attend to mass (not that there is anything wrong with any of those things). in fact i read Jesus' words with the same passion i read Zen Master Ryokan's... a concept you cannot obviously understand.

if Zen Accord is the muppet of Kazus, as this enlightened post and both nations' profile seem to suggest, then allow me to answer you both in one go; i don't pray; i read and learn. if that is the case (and i don't really expect you to confirm this anyway) i suggest you learn how to read other people's posts and - more - stop hiding behind muppets like a coward.

if i'm wrong ZA, i am sorry, and this reply is directed to Kazus only: not all people that read Jesus or quote him in a signature believe in God, pray or attend to mass (not that there is anything wrong with any of those things). in fact i read Jesus' words with the same passion i read Zen Master Ryokan's... a concept you cannot obviously understand.

No. To answer succinctly.

But I'd like to know why you thought this, as I don't see much similarity between our profiles.

And I prefer Basho, thankyou very much.

I'm sitting here watching Good Morning America and I hear some guy go "Prayers are American values"

..

No.

No they are not.

I just find it funny how people came here for religious freedom, and today the country is run by one single religion.

:rolleyes:

Don't mind me, it's early..isn't it true? every form of religion has prayers and everyone, including Athiest and Agnostics also pray.

can all Americans honestly tell me that they didn't pray in 2000 and 2004?

common, I know alot of Americans prayed.

"Oh God, please don't let Bush win!"
"Oh My God, I can't believe Bush WON!"
"Oh God, we're doomed!"


all those are prayers. :D

mines just barb wire... got to keep them in somehow

:fluffle: Momma knows best...

isn't it true? every form of religion has prayers and everyone, including Athiest and Agnostics also pray.

can all Americans honestly tell me that they didn't pray in 2000 and 2004?

common, I know alot of Americans prayed.

"Oh God, please don't let Bush win!"
"Oh My God, I can't believe Bush WON!"
"Oh God, we're doomed!"


all those are prayers. :D

Prayer is an effort to communicate with a deity or spirit, including a monotheist God, Saints, gods within a pantheon, or others; either to offer praise, to make a request, or simply to express one's thoughts and emotions.

damn - i hate it when people are right ... takes the fun out of it... :D

:fluffle: Momma knows best...

oOooo a fluffie....i dont know if single parent nations should show such displays of effection...

oh sod it

:fluffle:

it's in the best interests of the longevity of my nation.... one nation.. under bog.....

oOooo a fluffie....i dont know if single parent nations should show such displays of effection...

oh sod it

:fluffle:

it's in the best interests of the longevity of my nation.... one nation.. under bog.....

OMG - I just realised that Bog is Russian for God!

OMG - I just realised that Bog is Russian for God!

... i'm not up on my russian....

unless its stolitchnya

... i'm not up on my russian....

unless its stolitchnya

And this is where the Marsh deepens...

:fluffle:

*feels random*

And this is where the Marsh deepens...

:fluffle:

*feels random*

feels random what?.. passers by?.. you can arrested for that... you better pass a motion to make it legal in your nation :P

They probably wouldn't fall off, but they have been known to wander around on their own from time to time.:eek:
A parapetetic penis??? :eek:

I got an american value for you...leave me the fuck alone. If I dont want to pray I sure as hell am not going to.
Dude. It's a frackkin' Internet forum. No one can "make" you do anything. :p

nobody is raggin' on me, I have a puppet, and that's not it, you shall fear Smunkee's puppet, and nobody will ever figure it out..........HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

[/insanity]
Well, at least you retained sufficient aplomb to add the [/insanity] tag. :D

Dude. It's a frackkin' Internet forum. No one can "make" you do anything. :p
well, the mods can make you behave and be civil... or they can give you an "invitation to the world" [forum bann] ;)

... attend to mass ... a concept you cannot obviously understand.
Interesting phraseology. Engilsh not your first language? Just curious.

well, the mods can make you behave and be civil... or they can give you an "invitation to the world" [forum bann] ;)
This is true, as it is for everyone on here, but if I'm willing to face the consequences, I can choose to be uncivil, correct? :)

This is true, as it is for everyone on here, but if I'm willing to face the consequences, I can choose to be uncivil, correct? :)
yep... just like one can choose to break the law, choose to follow a religion.

Choice... a great freedom. :D

Religion to churches and houses, out of public life.

Fundamentalist of all the world------> fuck you up!:sniper:

Just thought I'd share something by my second favorite rapper.


Fuck The Creationists
Trash Talk
Ah yeah, here we go again!
Damn! This is some funky shit that I be laying down on your ass.
This one goes out to all my homey's working in the field of
evolutionary science.
Check it!

Verse 1
Fuck the damn creationists, those bunch of dumb-ass bitches,
every time I think of them my trigger finger itches.
They want to have their bullshit, taught in public class,
Stephen J. Gould should put his foot right up their ass.
Noah and his ark, Adam and his Eve,
straight up fairy stories even children don't believe.
I'm not saying there's no god, that's not for me to say,
all I'm saying is the Earth was not made in a day.

Chorus
Fuck, fuck, fuck,
fuck the Creationists.

Trash Talk
Break it down.
Ah damn, this is a funky jam!
I'm about ready to kick this bitch back in.
Check it.

Verse 2
Fuck the damn creationists I say it with authority,
because kicking their punk asses be me paramount priority.
Them wack-ass bitches say, "evolution's just a theory",
they best step off, them brainless fools, I'll give them cause to fear me.
The cosmos is expanding every second, every day,
but their minds are shrinking as they close their eyes and pray.
They call their bullshit science like the word could give them cred,
if them bitches be scientists then cap me in the head.

Chorus

Trash Talk
Bass!
Bring that shit in!
Ah yeah, that's right, fuck them all motherfuckers.
Fucking punk ass creationists trying to set scientific thought back 400 years.
Fuck that!
If them superstitious motherfuckers want to have that kind of party,
I'm going to put my dick in the mashed potatoes.
Fucking creationists.
Fuck them.

If creationists bug you, do you think Darwinism is correct?

If creationists bug you, do you think Darwinism is correct?Do you mean natural selection?

Do you mean natural selection?
Natural selection in terms of generating new species i.e. mutations leading to different types of animals and, in particular, man.

If creationists bug you, do you think Darwinism is correct?

What does creationism have to do with evolution? The only way the two have anything to do with one another is when some Creationist tries to explain that they're mutually exclusive. Only Young Earth Creationism (disprooved on so many levels) is excluive with evolutionary theory.

What does creationism have to do with evolution? The only way the two have anything to do with one another is when some Creationist tries to explain that they're mutually exclusive. Only Young Earth Creationism (disprooved on so many levels) is excluive with evolutionary theory.
Could someone please translate this for me? I am able to extrapolate some meaning from this post, but am unsure of the point. Creationism has very little to do with evolution. I have no idea what the last sentence means.

Natural selection in terms of generating new species i.e. mutations leading to different types of animals and, in particular, man.Why "in particular, man"?

I think the theories about evolution are highly accurate, in case you're curious. That obviously include us. Evidence suggests we're great apes. We actually have more in common with some members of the family, than some of the other members have with eachother.

Could someone please translate this for me? I am able to extrapolate some meaning from this post, but am unsure of the point. Creationism has very little to do with evolution. I have no idea what the last sentence means.

Question 1: What is the significance of connecting evolution and creationism as opposing ideas? They are not, except in the minds of Creationists who are opposed to the idea on principal.

Last sentence: Only Young Earth Creationism (That's the people who beleive the world is 6000 years old) is exclusive (I forgot an 's') with the idea of evolution. YEC faces more factual threat from geologists than from biologists, so it has little factual weight anyway.

What's not to understand?

What's not to understand?But, but, but!! Science is EVIL!! :p

But, but, but!! Science is EVIL!! :p

Shh! You're going to give away the plot by atheistic scientists to wage war on all that is holy!

Why "in particular, man"?

I think the theories about evolution are highly accurate, in case you're curious. That obviously include us. Evidence suggests we're great apes. We actually have more in common with some members of the family, than some of the other members have with eachother.
It just moves into the interesting discussion of a superior race of humans, where Darwin distinguished Aborigines as the 'least evolved' humans and Caucasians as the most evolved.
It further begs the question if birds evolved from reptiles, where are all the lizard-birds? Also, how could a sufficient breading population of ‘mutants’ be in the same place at the same time to support something like wings? Did they just fully function the first time? If not, it seems unlikely that an appendage that was less efficient as a hand/claw would continue to develop. There are just lots of holes in natural selection in terms of species creation.
Oh, by the way, I am a scientist - degreed and employed; shocking, I know. I find it interesting that natural-selection proponents believe that people who disagree are in fear of science, while creationists believe that people who disagree are in fear of religion. (Please ignore the stereotype if it does not apply to you.)

It further begs the question if birds evolved from reptiles, where are all the lizard-birds?

*Headdesk*

This is no different from the old question of, "If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

Modern birds did not evolve from modern reptiles. Humans did not evolve from modern monkeys. What part of "common ancestor" is confusing you? I am more than willing to help clear it up.


Also, how could a sufficient breading population of ‘mutants’ be in the same place at the same time to support something like wings?

Wait, so you think evolutionary theory states that adaptations (such as wings) are the result of a large population of spontaneously-mutanted individuals?


Did they just fully function the first time?

Did the initial mutant form show the exact same phenotype as, for instance, a modern bird? Of course not.


If not, it seems unlikely that an appendage that was less efficient as a hand/claw would continue to develop. There are just lots of holes in natural selection in terms of species creation.

There are, indeed, gaps in our understanding of evolution. However, what you have presented is gaps if YOUR understanding of evolutionary biology; you can have these questions answered quite easily if you purchase an introductory textbook.

Oh, by the way, I am a scientist - degreed and employed; shocking, I know. I find it interesting that natural-selection proponents believe that people who disagree are in fear of science, while creationists believe that people who disagree are in fear of religion.
Clearly you are not a scientist who has any background in biology whatsoever. I say this not as an insult, but as a simple statement of fact; nobody could pass an intro college biology class without attaining a better grasp of evolutionary theory than you demonstrate.

*Headdesk*

Wait, so you think evolutionary theory states that adaptations (such as wings) are the result of a large population of spontaneously-mutanted individuals?


Did the initial mutant form show the exact same phenotype as, for instance, a modern bird? Of course not.


There are, indeed, gaps in our understanding of evolution. However, what you have presented is gaps if YOUR understanding of evolutionary biology; you can have these questions answered quite easily if you purchase an introductory textbook.

Clearly you are not a scientist who has any background in biology whatsoever. I say this not as an insult, but as a simple statement of fact; nobody could pass an intro college biology class without attaining a better grasp of evolutionary theory than you demonstrate.

Genetic mutations can, indeed, be passed to future generations without a mating pair. However, a mating pair is required to continue a new species. Without two cats, no further cats will be produced. I passed biology in highschool and college. It was a top-10 college, too. Amazing, I know.
Moving out of biology for a second, probability indicates that, if over millions of years different species developed, there would be several intermediate species wandering around right now. Admitting that I haven’t done the math, it seems statistically improbable that all intermediate species would have met with extinction.
As you said, we have gaps in our understanding of evolution. These gaps warrant discussion as to the validity of evolution as an explanation of species development (no one has a problem with birds developing longer beaks over time for survival, for instance).
One day I would like to have an unemotional conversation with someone that actually explored the biological likelihood of evolution and creationism. I really don’t see why people cling so tightly to evolution, other than the only alternative at the moment offends them.

A parapetetic penis??? :eek:

Not just him, but his two compatriots as well.:D

*Pat yourself on the back Eut: I had to look up "paripatetic". That doesn't happen to me very often.*

Genetic mutations can, indeed, be passed to future generations without a mating pair. However, a mating pair is required to continue a new species. Without two cats, no further cats will be produced. I passed biology in highschool and college. It was a top-10 college, too. Amazing, I know.Take a bunch of critters. Seperate them into two sustainable groups, in different environments & prevent interbreeding. Eventually, you'll end up with critters that are both different from the common ancestor, and from eachother.

If youu do this continously, on a massive scale, over a vast period of time, you'll end up with a hell of a lot of different critters, who're all related somewhere down the line - some closely & others remotely.

That's speciation in a nutshell.Moving out of biology for a second, probability indicates that, if over millions of years different species developed, there would be several intermediate species wandering around right now. Admitting that I haven’t done the math, it seems statistically improbable that all intermediate species would have met with extinction. It depends on what exactly you mean by that. Everything that reproduces is a potential intermediary species. You'll have to supply your definition before you'll get sensible reply.
If you mean, for example, why the ancestor of humans & gorillas isn't alive today, then the most probable answer is that it was out competed by the things that evolved from it. There's nothing suspect about that.As you said, we have gaps in our understanding of evolution. These gaps warrant discussion as to the validity of evolution as an explanation of species development (no one has a problem with birds developing longer beaks over time for survival, for instance). Gaps warrent examination. Nothing more. Lack of evidence isn't evidence in itself. That's why people haven't stopped being superstitious.

Evidence can disprove some, possible all the theories about evolution, but presently, no such evidence exists.One day I would like to have an unemotional conversation with someone that actually explored the biological likelihood of evolution and creationism. I really don’t see why people cling so tightly to evolution, other than the only alternative at the moment offends them.There really isn't any alternative at the moment. The creative interpretations of Abrahamic scripture doesn't address the evidence we have, so calling it an alternative is dishonest at best.

If you have alternative hypotheses about the evidence, I'm sure everyone are eager to hear them. I know I am.

I'm sitting here watching Good Morning America and I hear some guy go "Prayers are American values"

..

No.

No they are not.

I just find it funny how people came here for religious freedom, and today the country is run by one single religion.

:rolleyes:

Don't mind me, it's early..


I get what you're saying and I agree with the sentiment... but I have to correct one thing... The people who founded this country didn't come here to promote religious freedom for everyone...they were Puritans...they were so fanatical about their religion they were forced to leave the country and came here so they could practice their religion, and only theirs. This country was founded by crazy religious types, not heroes or freedom lovers. Yes, it was written that this country shall allow the freedom to practice any religion but if you look at the history of this country, the majority have never been tolerant of any religion but their own.
It is sad, but shouldn't be surprising.
I'm not saying something shouldn't be done about it.

It just moves into the interesting discussion of a superior race of humans, where Darwin distinguished Aborigines as the 'least evolved' humans and Caucasians as the most evolved.
It further begs the question if birds evolved from reptiles, where are all the lizard-birds? Also, how could a sufficient breading population of ‘mutants’ be in the same place at the same time to support something like wings? Did they just fully function the first time? If not, it seems unlikely that an appendage that was less efficient as a hand/claw would continue to develop. There are just lots of holes in natural selection in terms of species creation.
Oh, by the way, I am a scientist - degreed and employed; shocking, I know. I find it interesting that natural-selection proponents believe that people who disagree are in fear of science, while creationists believe that people who disagree are in fear of religion. (Please ignore the stereotype if it does not apply to you.)

What's your degree in? Because I'm a thrid year student and the questions you've asked were answered in my first year. Time to go back to school.

What's your degree in? Because I'm a thrid year student and the questions you've asked were answered in my first year. Time to go back to school.
There are PHD's in biology that seriously consider creationism. There are also PHD's in biochemestry, molecular biology, and other sciences. http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp lists a few hundred for starters. I've never been to this website before, so am not suggesting that is to be used in the discussion. However it does show that PHD's from schools with top reputations dispute evolution as an explanation of species creation. Or, it shows that any idiot can get a PHD - which works to both side's argument. But please don't suggest serious scientists (who know lots more about the topic that I do) as a whole do not consider creation as a legitimate theory for exploration. Again, I just need to take some time and read some more. I believe there is too much emotion and assumptions on both sides of this issue in a public forum.

STFU Jesus-freaks, I don't respect your religion, I respect your right to practice your relgion as long as you respect my right to mock it, o yeah, and stop telling us that it's your right to decide who can get married, and quit attacking science...... FUCK CHRISTIANITY

don't mind me either, been awake all night, still awake from yesterday

Sound like an atheistic fred Phelps.

But please don't suggest serious scientists (who know lots more about the topic that I do) as a whole do not consider creation as a legitimate theory for exploration.Many, possibly most, might well consider it a perfectly legitimate theory. But no scientist worth his or her salt, would consider it a scientific theory. It isn't. It's theology.Again, I just need to take some time and read some more. I believe there is too much emotion and assumptions on both sides of this issue in a public forum.I don't know how emotional this topic is for you, but on this side of the fence, the only emotional aspect, is frustration,

I wish it would sink in that nobody (important) has a problem with people criticising scientific theories. It's how science advances. Critique is the life blood of the sciences, evolution included.

What is a problem, is that instead of criticising current theories & help advance our understanding, IDists have resigned themselves to pointing out uncertainties & unknowns with glee, without offering any competing hypotheses, but instead saying "Alright then, this proves it. We haven't discovered X yet, ergo the alphabet does not exist!"

The only thing they do offer, is a theological argument based on a single religion, and they attempt to pass off this theological argument as a scientific theory, which it clearly isn't, as it is based on no evidence & proposes an unfalisfiable explanation.

It has nothing to do with scientific examination of the reality we're part of. It's at most an attempt to undermine future scientific exploration of our reality. I'm sure Galileo is spinning in his grave...

And I'm quite sure you should educate yourself before you take this argument further, because like the majority of other people parotting IDists, you're missing what the argument is about.

Many, possibly most, might well consider it a perfectly legitimate theory. But no scientist worth his or her salt, would consider it a scientific theory. It isn't. It's theology.I don't know how emotional this topic is for you, but on this side of the fence, the only emotional aspect, is frustration,

I wish it would sink in that nobody (important) has a problem with people criticising scientific theories. It's how science advances. Critique is the life blood of the sciences, evolution included.

What is a problem, is that instead of criticising current theories & help advance our understanding, IDists have resigned themselves to pointing out uncertainties & unknowns with glee, without offering any competing hypotheses, but instead saying "Alright then, this proves it. We haven't discovered X yet, ergo the alphabet does not exist!"

The only thing they do offer, is a theological argument based on a single religion, and they attempt to pass off this theological argument as a scientific theory, which it clearly isn't, as it is based on no evidence & proposes an unfalisfiable explanation.

It has nothing to do with scientific examination of the reality we're part of. It's at most an attempt to undermine future scientific exploration of our reality. I'm sure Galileo is spinning in his grave...

And I'm quite sure you should educate yourself before you take this argument further, because like the majority of other people parotting IDists, you're missing what the argument is about.
It is interesting again that you choose to state that no scientist worth their salt would seriously consider creationism as a science, when it appears hundreds do - I provided the link. Secondly, Christians, Jews, and Muslims would represent at least three theologies on the side of creationism, but I am not looking for theology. I have heard several compelling arguments for creationism, including the appearance of animals in the fossil record, the flegellan motor, the extreme chance and probability of developing complex organisms, examples of organs with no precursors, etc. I am also seeing that there are people with reasonable credentials that may be leaning toward the idea of creation (I don't pretend to know the depth of their knowledge).

I appreciate the attitudes of the few who have responded with sincerity - including you. I am not convinced (even remotely) that evolution explains species development. It seems to take a great deal of faith to buy into the argument that birds developed from lizards (common ancestor) with the surprising differences between them, as well as the lack of intermediate speces walking around all over the place. It takes a great deal of faith to think an organism would develop something as simple as a wing, must less the inate ability to fly. I don't have that much faith in evolution as it stands now. I am also concerned with the fake intermediate species that have been presented as real, and the text-book progressions of man that some people (apparently not religious wackos) report as largely misleading or simply wrong.

So, I am not so much tied to this emotionally as intellectually. As I do read more, I can see how the Genesis believing Christians would be emotionally attached creationism. I am also beginning to see that very well learned people are emotionally attached to evolution since they have been emphatically told it adequately explains species development. I think both sides look at the argument and realize that being wrong would mean abandoning something that they have placed tremendous faith in.

No single thread has ever managed to irritate me so much in so many ways. Congratulations Ruffy, you've created a monster.

It is interesting again that you choose to state that no scientist worth their salt would seriously consider creationism as a science, when it appears hundreds do - I provided the link.Yes you provided a link, but you missed the point. The various ID-isms are not scientific theories. They aren't, because they defy scientific study.

Whether or not someone believes in one of the IDisms, is of no consequence to their standings as non-scientific theories. Religion in itself defies science, but I very much doubt that has ever prevented a scientist from being religious. The IDisms are no different.Secondly, Christians, Jews, and Muslims would represent at least three theologies on the side of creationism, but I am not looking for theology.Pastafarians, worshippers of the Invisible Pink Unicorn & any believer in a pantheon with one or more creator gods could also be represented by one of the IDisms. In what way does this affect the theories?I have heard several compelling arguments for creationism, including the appearance of animals in the fossil record, the flegellan motor, the extreme chance and probability of developing complex organisms, examples of organs with no precursors, etc.So let's talk about the IDisms. Present the theories so we can examine them. Don't be shy.I appreciate the attitudes of the few who have responded with sincerity - including you.Thanks. But I have a request. Stop comparing evolution & the IDisms. Pick one so we can examine it without getting sidetracked, and accept the very simple fact that the failure of either set of explanations, in no way affects the validity or credibility of the other.

The oft used "If it isn't evo, it's crea" is as idiotic as saying "If Similization isn't a 300' squirrel, he's a silicon-based lifeform from planet Slugburp".

Thanks in advance.I am not convinced (even remotely) that evolution explains species development. It seems to take a great deal of faith to buy into the argument that birds developed from lizards (common ancestor) with the surprising differences between them, as well as the lack of intermediate speces walking around all over the place. It takes a great deal of faith to think an organism would develop something as simple as a wing, must less the inate ability to fly. I don't have that much faith in evolution as it stands now.I think the main reason for your scepticism, is the sheer scale of the proposition. Lizzards morphing into birds sounds completely outrageous, I agree, but it isn't what's proposed.

What is proposed is that very gradual changes, over a very, very long period, will eventually amount to some great differences. Do you find it completely unreasonable that a species of lizzards may find itself in a situation, where it is highly beneficial for it to climb trees, and thus develops slightly more appropriate feet for climbing?

If you don't think that's completely unreasonable, then you should carefully consider what such tiny changes may end up as, if given enough time, enough opportunities & enough change in the environment.I am also concerned with the fake intermediate species that have been presented as real, and the text-book progressions of man that some people (apparently not religious wackos) report as largely misleading or simply wrong.Who isn't? .. Well, I don't know exactly what you're talking about, but..

About the last emotional bit. Hmm. I think you misinterpret the situation. In [i]my[/] opinion, there's very little emotion involved on the scientific side of things. There's nothing published on any of the ID theories, as far as I know, so there's actually no argument going on in the scientific community.

But I agree that it is highly emotional for the Christian ID proponents. It seems a great many of them have become convinced that their religion is suffering a malicious, calculated attack.

But again in my opinion, that isn't the case, unless these ID proponents consider reality an attack on their faith. Evolution is simply the "best bet" anyone has right now. It is full of holes, but it isn't full of contradictions or inconsistencies. It's simply riddled with "presently unknown's" - which is why it is important to try to examine these unknowns, so they won't continue to be mysteries.

Finally, let me repeat my request: please explain what it is you wish to debate & stick to one subject. If you want to discuss the merits of an ID theory, then present us with it & let's stick to that. If you wish to debate the merits of evolution, then present us with your questions or arguments, and let's stick to those.

I have been watching this debate with much interest. Perhaps I could join?

Stop comparing evolution & the IDisms. Pick one so we can examine it without getting sidetracked, and accept the very simple fact that the failure of either set of explanations, in no way affects the validity or credibility of the other.

All right, let's start with evolution. First, let's start with a definiton: Evolution is any gradual process that results in changes over time in the form of adaptation or transformation (in the case of geological processes). To address the second part of your statement, we will assume that confirmation, or not, as the case may be, of either evolution or intelligent design does not discount or support the validity of the other.

The oft used "If it isn't evo, it's crea" is as idiotic as saying "If Similization isn't a 300' squirrel, he's a silicon-based lifeform from planet Slugburp".

Agreed, for current purposes. However, that appears to be the mainstream idea of two camps, either evolution or creationism, but for the purposes of debate it is assumed that it is not either/or.

What is proposed is that very gradual changes, over a very, very long period, will eventually amount to some great differences. Do you find it completely unreasonable that a species of lizzards may find itself in a situation, where it is highly beneficial for it to climb trees, and thus develops slightly more appropriate feet for climbing?

Darwinian evolution; gradual adaptations over time. This idea is not wholly objectionable, as it is merely the extension of and already existing life form to provide greater ease of survival. Such ideas have already been proven to occur in the span of recorded history; many species have developed realtively small adaptations after being transplanted into a new location, or through selective breeding, such as occurred in the past with dogs, horses, and cattle.

If you don't think that's completely unreasonable, then you should carefully consider what such tiny changes may end up as, if given enough time, enough opportunities & enough change in the environment.

Ah yes, the logical conclusion derived from gradual adaptation: the gradual transformation of a species into a wholly new form of life. But, in the span of recorded history, this has not been proved; any tests that seek to replicate this phenomena are merely conjectures, and would result in an idea of feasibility, not proof. Since we are discussing the merits of evolutionary ideology, it is necessary to establish that, using this model, the scientific method must be used to approach and, therefore, prove the existence of such phenomenae. Since we do not have the necessary amount of time required to do this, we base these assumptions on observational conclusions drawn from geological and fossil records. In doing this, we assume that the fossil records and geological evidence are adequate, and through an application of what we observe today on what happened yesterday, arrive at a conclusion that may suggest the factuality of the original hypothesis (which, in this case, is the development of new life through a series of adaptations in the process of evolution). Following me here? I may getting ahead of myself. The general idea is this: because we cannot prove the theory of evolution following the traditional manner of the scientific method, we must base any conclusions on evidence of what we know to be true now, ie, what has been observed to be true at present. The application of the present to the past is quite an assumptive leap, as the prehistoric age can only be discussed through an observational analysis, which is always an action of the present. For example, it is believed that the Grand Canyon was carved out over thousands (even millions) of years and is undeniable proof that the sedimentary records indicate a gradual transformation of a landscape into a geological phenomena. However, this is based on our observation of how sedimentary rock is formed today. Consider that, following and during the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, such catastrophic forces combined to form a scale model of the Grand Canyon in a very brief period. The forces involved deposited sediments that were eroded by subsequent pyroclastic steam, water, and mud flows northeast of the summit of Mt. St. Helens. The canyon walls resemble many canyons that are believed to be much older. Of course, this example concerns evolutionary geology, and not biology, so not entirely relevant. However, my point is, to say with any degree of certainty that life forms evolved through a series of gradual adaptations is an assumption that requires an enormous amount of faith in the idea that all changes are a result of a prolonged period of time.

There's nothing published on any of the ID theories, as far as I know, so there's actually no argument going on in the scientific community.

Actually, it is quite a hot topic among the scientific community. As far as published works, the one that I am currently reading is "In Six Days: Why fifty scientists choose to believe in Creation." It is quite interesting.

But again in my opinion, that isn't the case, unless these ID proponents consider reality an attack on their faith. Evolution is simply the "best bet" anyone has right now. It is full of holes, but it isn't full of contradictions or inconsistencies. It's simply riddled with "presently unknown's" - which is why it is important to try to examine these unknowns, so they won't continue to be mysteries.

I have bolded the one part in you argument that struck me as the most untrue. In fact, there are some inconsistencies in the theory of evolution. For instance, all scientific theory rests on the law of causality, which implies that every effect must have a cause, and a cause can have many effects, but none of these effects may exceed the the quantity or quality of the cause itself. So, assuming this is true, how could humans "evolve" from creatures that do not possess the intellect, volition, imagination and faculties exhibited by man?

Finally, let me repeat my request: please explain what it is you wish to debate & stick to one subject. If you want to discuss the merits of an ID theory, then present us with it & let's stick to that. If you wish to debate the merits of evolution, then present us with your questions or arguments, and let's stick to those.

Exactly. We must discuss each on its own merits.

*A lot of this information comes from my reading of "In Six Days: Why fifty scientists choose to believe in Creation," but has also been the result of my experience and research into this topic over the past few years.

Moving out of biology for a second, probability indicates that, if over millions of years different species developed, there would be several intermediate species wandering around right now. Admitting that I haven’t done the math, it seems statistically improbable that all intermediate species would have met with extinction.

All species are intermediate species.

Well, except for the first off course, whatever those were.


It takes a great deal of faith to think an organism would develop something as simple as a wing, must less the inate ability to fly. I don't have that much faith in evolution as it stands now.

Yet flying squirrels seem to be doing fine.

All species are intermediate species.

Well, except for the first off course, whatever those were.




Yet flying squirrels seem to be doing fine.

Despite the name, flying squirrels actually glide, an adaptation that allows them greater ease of travel. They do not have wings; they extended webs of skin, much like the webbed feet on many aquatic birds that facilitate greater ease of travel in water.

Despite the name, flying squirrels actually glide, an adaptation that allows them greater ease of travel. They do not have wings; they extended webs of skin, much like the webbed feet on many aquatic birds that facilitate greater ease of travel in water.

I know, that was kind of my point...:confused:

Flying squirrels are an example of how a species could have evolved wings.

I know, that was kind of my point...:confused:

Flying squirrels are an example of how a species could have evolved wings.

Possibly. But the development of a completely separate limb structure is quite different than a relatively small adaptation such as the extension of skin that enables flying squirrels to "fly." The comparison was relevant, but invalid, I'm afraid.

Possibly. But the development of a completely separate limb structure is quite different than a relatively small adaptation such as the extension of skin that enables flying squirrels to "fly." The comparison was relevant, but invalid, I'm afraid.

I'm not claiming they'll get there in a few years.

Question 1: What is the significance of connecting evolution and creationism as opposing ideas? They are not, except in the minds of Creationists who are opposed to the idea on principal.

Last sentence: Only Young Earth Creationism (That's the people who beleive the world is 6000 years old) is exclusive (I forgot an 's') with the idea of evolution. YEC faces more factual threat from geologists than from biologists, so it has little factual weight anyway.

What's not to understand?

Actually, what we pass off as geological fact may in fact not be as such. The idea requires the assumption that the sedimentary and geological processes as we see them today occurred at the same rate in the past, if they were not just created in that manner when the Earth was first made. It is quite probable that the world is less than 10,000 years old.

I'm not claiming they'll get there in a few years.

No, and I didn't say you were. The entire premise is that it takes an enormous amount of time and circumstance--which is, basically, assumption and speculation on highly improbable occurrences.

Of course, I now realize that this entire debate is WAY off topic of the original post...so, I'd say I have to agree, that prayers are American values. Can't America have multiple values? Prayer, free practice of religion, free press, relative freedom, the list goes on...

Yet flying squirrels seem to be doing fine.
I'm on board when it comes to adaptation, just not evolutionary species creation. A flying squirrel is a squirrel. It seems to me, from a purely statistical point of view applied to millions of years, there would be nearly countless intermediate species. Someone (?) keeps saying everything is an intermediate species, but that cheapens the argument. It assumes that our decendents are going to dramatically change into something barely resembling our current state. This results in a circular argument Someone else (?) said something that makes me pretty comfortable that even those who argue evolution sometimes don't understand it - things don't change because they determine an advantage. There is no willed evolution. If that were the case humans would be developing wings, instead of building airplanes. I don't recall many people stating such an obviously mistaken interpretation of evolution.

I do respect the positions Similization and Bottle have taken.

When I think of American values I think of the following concepts:

1) Self reliance. The idea that Americans should strive to become financially free. This means owning your own home and having enough income to provide for yourself and your family.

2) Freedom of conscience.

3) Freedomof speech

4) The right to bear arms so that no wackos will ever be able to take the government away from the people.

I guess the right to pray is an American value. You atheists have the right to practice your faith here so be proud of it. You have the right to pray if you want but you do not have to. You do not have the right to limit anyone else's right to pray. Unfortunately our Supreme Court seems to agree with you that America should be a godless nation. I think our Supreme Court should spend some quality time in China or other places that do not have total freedom of religious conscience.

Possibly. But the development of a completely separate limb structure is quite different than a relatively small adaptation such as the extension of skin that enables flying squirrels to "fly." The comparison was relevant, but invalid, I'm afraid.
Completely different limb structure? A bird's wing is a modified arm. It's not like the bones and joints there don't have counterparts in a whale's fluke, a dog's foreleg, or a human arm.

Good morals would be nice for the country, but certain morals that are the majority are one sided BS.

The majority being christians, stand only for christians and make everyone else go bye their set of morals.

You can get morals from other places than a book, you know.


I think an athiest might be less biased.. hm..


By biased what do you mean ? Will they be any more for the death penalty or less likely ? remember we live in a representative Democracy..those we elect are supposed to reflect our views. I personaly have to suppress throwing up when I hear a politicion talk about God. I'll admit Bush can push the limit of my gag reflex at times ..but he's no worse than most presidents when it comes to including God in some form in his speeches...the real killers are the congressmen and Senators...I cant even watch them on TV without a bucket nearbye...and the one asshole on a TV news program that claimed the US is a " Christian country " built on " christian " values I would like to take outside and beat the devil out of him..he would thank me I am sure .
The US was founded by diest..those that believe in a supreme being...not an organised group that woships a particular sky father. They came here for the most part to escape the religiouse persecution of Europe and for more worldly political and economic reasons. I do not need a third grade level history- moron , to preach to me about the US being a " Christian " country ...IT is NOT . To think so is to neglect the intent of the founders of the US and the religiouse freedom deliberately ENSHRINED in our constitution. And is to make yourself ignorant of history and the words and actions of those who formed the US...JUST to mention GOD doesnt make you a Christian . They may have believed in some type of supreme being and some may have even been christian ..but they also new the horror of religion and the wars religion can create along with the class system , they knew religion would do more to seperate than to UNITE ! And the US was all about UNITING from the beginning. You cannot UNITE groups by seperating them , into classes and religions . And with 300 million people of every race creed color and religion , we still ARE a country united Under one Flag and ONE constitution that represents the American Values...NO one religion can do that .
Our modern asshole Politicions need to go back and read up on Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin and the rest of the gang , to gain a better understanding as to why and how this " American drean " thing works..in this case its not " all about the BENJAMINS " . Freedom to worship , to speak , to assemble ..FREEDOM to work to learn and to be succesfull no matter what class ..caste ..or former economic condition you came from. Freedom to be an INDIVIDUAL and with your rights guaranteed not only by a piece of paper
BUT by a piece of paper that PUTS the power to protect your rights into your own hands and makes YOU responsible for its protection ..every citizen has the right and the obligation to protect the Constitution . If necessary if everything breaks down ...they can do it by the force of Arms as guaranteed in the second Amendment .

I cant say I represent anything of the popular view on religion in the US..
Fuck popular ..I would rather represent the right view and the fair view.
Another thing the nitwits we vote for could learn .

I think an Atheist can get elected as long as no one knew it ...but then we would be electing a lier and a coward . If you are not strong enough to state what you believe in and defend it , by what right can you claim to be a leader ?

So we get those who represent the majority as President ..this may leave a sizable minority with its panties in a bunch but they get a turn every four years to change things and every TWO years to gain real power in the House .

GOD has no place in government " leave unto Ceasar what is ceasars " to quote some Christian text...but how can you take god out of those you elect ? They are the society you choose to live in . These people make up a sizable MAJORITY in the US . At the locol level you get more diversity of religion ( Philadelphia has a Muslim Police commisioner and the Mayor is Baptist , city council represents all christian and also Jewish and muslim )

On the State level the Governor is Jewish as is a Senator ..the sane one IMO ..Arlen Spector ..a Moderate..then we have our Crazy Christian ..Santorum...he's nuts and a zelot ..IMO . if you look the rest are a misture of Jew ,and Christians of all flavors .

The US government starts with the states and ends with the federal government. Bush has one of the MOST diverse group of Race / religion / enthnicity ..of people in his Government than any other American president in memory !!

Look it up...and he's been consistent..so you cant say he is surrounding himself with religouse sycophants...they share the religion of Conservatism .
Thats it .

So take a little time and get past the steryotypes .