The conundrum of enlightenment

[Thinkbigger]

It is my contention that religiosity is an inherently natural human trait. I further contend that various faith based belief systems have served as a great facilitator to the human race for time immemorial and have literally co-evolved with humanity. I contend that most every effort to thwart religiosity will ultimately fail due to it's inherent nature. Similarly, I contend that the tendency for some to rail against this religious/superstitious aspect of human nature is normal in all populations and therefore most every attempt to thwart atheism will fail due to atheism's inherent nature. The point being that both are ancient human traits and fall well within the norn of human behavioral characteristics.

I've observed that some overly enthusiastic atheists believe (ahem.. have faith) that the natural tendency for humans to spirituality is universally bad for humanity. I contend that this is a subjective notion and therefore unuseful, uninteresting and somewhat ironic.

I contend that Christianity is built upon the most advanced notions of all the faith based constructs. A close look at the words of Jesus Christ reveal that Jesus' primary message was one of universal love. Love that engenders compassion, charity, humility, forgiveness, etc. Christianity's tendency and capacity to mold people into civility is the primary reason that Christianity is the world's fastest growing religion.  It provides facility for the social and spiritual needs of it's followers and holds love as it's core precept. Most importantly however, Christianity seems to represent the most sucessful paradigm construct for the taming of the uncivil masses that anyone has yet managed to dream up. It represents the cutting edge of religious evolution.

I contend that, despite the fact that places of worship the world over are at least partially populated with atheists, the wisest atheists remain hidden within the flock because they know that fighting certain aspects of human nature are futile and personally unrewarding.

The atheist may make the case that humans are merely animated matter that has naturally come by the ability to think about itself.
The Christian considers and seeks the transformation of his/her's own behavioral nature as well as that of the community at large.

Both are wrong, but for different reasons.

The atheist assumes that he/she is has gathered all the necessary information and presumes to possess enough intellectual power to make the definitive determination that God does not exist. This is folly. The most one can claim concerning any subject that cannot be made yield to experimentation is that we don't/can't know. Religious believers offer no verifiable proofs but instead make it a matter of faith alone. This seems conveniently disingenuous. Therefore, who is more the fool, the one who blindly believes the unprovable, or the one who claims proof of the unprovable?

I am happy because I see the truth. Attempting to remove religion from humanity is futile, dangerous, and at the very minimum, mean spirited.

These words contain the final piece to the conundrum of enlightenment. Please recognize and take it for the gift that it is. Go in peace.

[LegendarySandwich]

It is my contention that religiosity is an inherently natural human trait. I further contend that various faith based belief systems have served as a great facilitator to the human race for time immemorial and have literally co-evolved with humanity. I contend that most every effort to thwart religiosity will ultimately fail due to it's inherent nature. Similarly, I contend that the tendency for some to rail against this religious/superstitious aspect of human nature is normal in all populations and therefore most every attempt to thwart atheism will fail due to atheism's inherent nature. The point being that both are ancient human traits and fall well within the norn of human behavioral characteristics.

This all seems reasonable, and, unless shown reason not to, I would agree with it.

I've observed that some overly enthusiastic atheists believe (ahem.. have faith) that the natural tendency for humans to spirituality is universally bad for humanity. I contend that this is a subjective notion and therefore unuseful, uninteresting and somewhat ironic.

So, subjectivity is all useless? That seems rather odd for a Christian (which I presume you are) to say, as they almost always emphasize faith and religious experience, both of which are subjective.

Also, can you point me to where any atheists say that spiritual experiences are bad?

I contend that Christianity is built upon the most advanced notions of all the faith based constructs.

Have you read the Old Testament lately?

A close look at the words of Jesus Christ reveal that Jesus' primary message was one of universal love.

But yet, if you don't believe in him, you'll go to Hell. Yeah. Universal love, right?

Love that engenders compassion, charity, humility, forgiveness, etc. Christianity's tendency and capacity to mold people into civility

So, Christianity makes people better human beings? This is obviously false.

is the primary reason that Christianity is the world's fastest growing religion.

Evidence? Also, if it is the world's fastest growing religion, I'd bet that it's because of missionaries going into places like Africa and converting people.

It provides facility for the social and spiritual needs of it's followers and holds love as it's core precept. Most importantly however, Christianity seems to represent the most sucessful paradigm construct for the taming of the uncivil masses that anyone has yet managed to dream up. It represents the cutting edge of religious evolution.

Evidence?

I contend that, despite the fact that places of worship the world over are at least partially populated with atheists, the wisest atheists remain hidden within the flock because they know that fighting certain aspects of human nature are futile and personally unrewarding.

Wait...so the atheists that pretend to be Christians are the wisest? Yeah, no.

The atheist may make the case that humans are merely animated matter that has naturally come by the ability to think about itself.
The Christian considers and seeks the transformation of his/her's own behavioral nature as well as that of the community at large.

I think that large generalizations like those two do no one good.

Both are wrong, but for different reasons.

The atheist assumes that he/she is has gathered all the necessary information and presumes to possess enough intellectual power to make the definitive determination that God does not exist.

Again, large generalizations like this are intellectually lazy, and can be shown to be false.

This is folly. The most one can claim concerning any subject that cannot be made yield to experimentation is that we don't/can't know.

...Which is what most atheists claim, as most atheists are weak atheists. However, specific gods, such as the Abrahamic god, can be shown to be false.

Religious believers offer no verifiable proofs but instead make it a matter of faith alone.

Some believers actually try to offer verifiable proofs for the existence of their god (even though they mostly suck); what is this, your third large generalization?

This seems conveniently disingenuous.

I concur.

Therefore, who is more the fool, the one who blindly believes the unprovable, or the one who claims proof of the unprovable?

Well, nothing can be shown to be 100% accurate, so I'd have to say the latter.

I am happy because I see the truth. Attempting to remove religion from humanity is futile, dangerous, and at the very minimum, mean spirited.

I disagree. As a whole, we'd be better off without religion, and irrational thinking in general.

These words contain the final piece to the conundrum of enlightenment. Please recognize and take it for the gift that it is. Go in peace.

Yeahhh...no.

Also, you never gave any sort of evidence at all that what you believe is true. You even made it a point that faith alone is disingenuous -- so how do you rationalize your beliefs?

EDIT: Also also, shouldn't this be moved to the religion forum?

[Tank]

It is my contention that religiosity is an inherently natural human trait.

I agree, I think that humanity became superstitious to cope with the cognitive dissonance caused by the gap between knowledge (the Sun rises) and  understanding (why does the Sun rise?). This differential is something I think the evolved human mind has great difficulty coping with. We see cause and effect as immutably linked (a fact Quantum Mechanics has shown not to be the case). Where we see effect we want to know cause. Thus without the apparent cause of the Sun rising humanity introduces a 'fudge factor' and call it God. Why God? God is the ultimate aspirational Alpha Male. Men want to be Him and women want Him as a sperm donor so they have the best possible offspring and care. Why wouldn't God be the perfect father?

EDIT. And of course the virgin birth is a call to female fantasy of the perfect conception without all the 'sleeping in the wet patch' stuff. Not that getting the 'wet patch' isn't fun, it's just the sleeping in it that's the problem.   ). So there is some more straw to throw on the fire.

About 75% of people who declare themselves atheist do so because they hold that those that hold the God hypothesis have failed to present sufficient evidence to make it a God Theory, let alone a God Law. I consider myself to fall into this group intellectually. The remainder of atheists fall into the group that make the assertion that God does not exist. I won't speak for them as I'm sure somebody will be along soon to explain that world view better than I could as I don't hold it.

Now just because mythology has dominated the world view of most of the world's population (and still does) does not make the world view correct or acceptable. The daemon view of infection is now only held by those who would be (should be) considered delusional. The view that the world was created in a literal 7 days is equally delusional. We don't accept daemons as real or that the universe is under 10,000 years old. So to say that there is some sort of equality between a world view based on mythology and one based on naturalism is just plain mad.

I am happy because I see the truth.

Ah! Now this is where we get the preachy bit, the bit where you do like a good little solider for delusion and witness for your faith. You only see the truth that you want to see. The one with a mythological Alpha Male that when the shit hits the fan will put every thing right, the easy view that you are ultimately a puppet of Gods will and where you ultimately bear no responsibility for your actions because God gave you free will. And that was just about as sensible as giving a kid a loaded gun.

Attempting to remove religion from humanity is futile, dangerous, and at the very minimum, mean spirited.

It's not futile, its underway right now. It's not surprising the process is painful as humanity has hobbled along on the delusional crutch for all of its conscious existance. Many of our cultures are dependent on the crutch, throwing it away and becoming responsible for our own actions will be very, very difficult and as you point out dangerous. But surgury to cut out a cancer is dangerous and sometimes fails, but should we accept that cancer is inevitable? No we don't and neither should we accept that situation with religion. Is a surgeon 'mean spirited' to destroy a cancerous tumour? The tumour is after all is said and done part of Gods creation is it not?

These words contain the final piece to the conundrum of enlightenment. Please recognize and take it for the gift that it is. Go in peace.

No these words reveal the deep seated delusional world view that you hold. I apologise for the blunt nature of my words but I do you no good if I don't tell you what I think.

Regards
Chris

EDIT. I reported the post simply to suggest it should not be in the welcome forum. Expect a move when a Mod opens the report.

[The Magic Pudding]

I further contend that various faith based belief systems have served as a great facilitator to the human race for time immemorial

I don't think religion has always made progress for humans easier, it often seems set on maintaining the status quo, we have the persecuted astronomers, but how about this one "In 1536 the crown authorities strangled Tyndale to death and subsequently burned his body."
What did the evil Tyndale do, he dared to translate the bible into English!  One exclamation mark seems hardly adequate for such sin.

I contend that most every effort to thwart religiosity will ultimately fail due to it's inherent nature.

I'm just hoping for a bit of damage control at the moment.

I've observed that some overly enthusiastic atheists believe (ahem.. have faith) that the natural tendency for humans to spirituality is universally bad for humanity. I contend that this is a subjective notion and therefore unuseful, uninteresting and somewhat ironic.

I'm not sure what spiritual means, I have been in places at just the right time and the beauty is beyond anything I can describe, I surrender to the beauty of the moment, should I thank some god?

I contend that Christianity is built upon the most advanced notions of all the faith based constructs. A close look at the words of Jesus Christ reveal that Jesus' primary message was one of universal love. Love that engenders compassion, charity, humility, forgiveness, etc.

Well why if it was so finely formed did it not burn the hands of tyrants, you know like the cross burned Dracula in all those movies.

Christianity's tendency and capacity to mold people into civility is the primary reason that Christianity is the world's fastest growing religion.  It provides facility for the social and spiritual needs of it's followers and holds love as it's core precept. Most importantly however, Christianity seems to represent the most sucessful paradigm construct for the taming of the uncivil masses that anyone has yet managed to dream up. It represents the cutting edge of religious evolution.  It represents the cutting edge of religious evolution.

I have heard it called a slave religion.
A tool of subjugation par excellence, I think my signature may come into play here.
It doesn't just tame the uncivil, Darwin was tamed for years before he dared speak.
Someone may have dreamed of something better, but if they spoke of it, they probably died for it.

It represents the cutting edge of religious evolution.

I contend that, despite the fact that places of worship the world over are at least partially populated with atheists, the wisest atheists remain hidden within the flock because they know that fighting certain aspects of human nature are futile and personally unrewarding.

The atheists remain hidden because they want to avoid losing their heads to your cutting edge of religion.

The atheist may make the case that humans are merely animated matter that has naturally come by the ability to think about itself.

merely? merely? merely?  Stars form and die, form again and die form and we arise with a consciousness that asks how (not why or hackenslash will wack me), well keep your merely to yourself.

Both are wrong, but for different reasons.

The atheist assumes that he/she is has gathered all the necessary information and presumes to possess enough intellectual power to make the definitive determination that God does not exist. This is folly. The most one can claim concerning any subject that cannot be made yield to experimentation is that we don't/can't know. Religious believers offer no verifiable proofs but instead make it a matter of faith alone. This seems conveniently disingenuous. Therefore, who is more the fool, the one who blindly believes the unprovable, or the one who claims proof of the unprovable?

I am happy because I see the truth. Attempting to remove religion from humanity is futile, dangerous, and at the very minimum, mean spirited.

These words contain the final piece to the conundrum of enlightenment. Please recognize and take it for the gift that it is. Go in peace.

What is bovine in origin, brown, lumpy and is good for your garden?

[Voter]

Thinkbigger, excellent post. Most atheists on boards don't really think through the practical implications of their beliefs.

[LegendarySandwich]

Thinkbigger, excellent post. Most atheists on boards don't really think through the practical implications of their beliefs.

No.

[elliebean]

Thinkbigger, excellent post. Most atheists on boards don't really think through the practical implications of their beliefs.

Wheras some theists can't seem to even think their way through a single post.

[elliebean]

@OP: You keep saying you contend things. That starts to seem awfully contentious after a few times. Why don't you just say what you're really doing, which is asserting them.

Also, learn the difference between a belief and a non-belief.

[Whitney]

bigthinker,

you contend a lot of things but offer no proof or reason for them

Preaching is against forum rules, so you either need to offer proof of your contentions or not post here.

[Ken2468]

A few comments:

1) I don't think religion will ever go away. Many people who are suffering tremendous grief, loneliness, fear, etc. will always look to find comfort in any way they can. Churches / belief in God is one way they can find such refuge, whether what they are seeking presents the truth or not. All it takes is a great tragedy (natural disaster, disease epidemic, etc.) and hordes of people will flock to the comforting arms of holy men, holy books, and/or pray to a God of some sort.

2) I am an atheist. Responsible atheists / scientists won't ever say they are 100% certain there is no God. The question as to whether a God exists or not is one that cannot be answered definitively by either side. However, one CAN examine the evidence to date and determine the probability of either option. I believe it was Richard Dawkins who came up with a seven-point scale, with "1" being you are 100% sure there IS a God, and "7" being you're 100% sure there is NOT a God. No one should claim that they are either a "1" or a "7" since neither extreme can be certain of their position. However, based on the evidence to date, one can select one of the other five numbers on the scale (with "4" being the agnostic position). I would say I am a 6.

3) Point 2 above simply presents the deist debate (i.e., Is there a God or not). The theists still have a lot more explaining to do re. their belief that their God can read minds, listen to and answer prayers, keep "naughty and nice" lists on every single human being who ever existed and sit in judgement of them when they die, perform miracles, pick sides in battles between good and evil, etc. That's a pretty high bar.

[LegendarySandwich]

2) I am an atheist. Responsible atheists / scientists won't ever say they are 100% certain there is no God. The question as to whether a God exists or not is one that cannot be answered definitively by either side.

It depends on what God you're talking about. Contrary to popular opinion, the Abrahamic god (i.e. the god of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity) CAN be disproven.

[wildfire_emissary]

The atheist assumes that he/she is has gathered all the necessary information and presumes to possess enough intellectual power to make the definitive determination that God does not exist. This is folly. The most one can claim concerning any subject that cannot be made yield to experimentation is that we don't/can't know. Religious believers offer no verifiable proofs but instead make it a matter of faith alone. This seems conveniently disingenuous. Therefore, who is more the fool, the one who blindly believes the unprovable, or the one who claims proof of the unprovable?

I know of no one who claimed they have all the necessary information. But with the available information, there is no sign of god.

[hackenslash]

It is my contention that religiosity is an inherently natural human trait.

Dunno about that. I think that superstition is an inherently natural human trait, because it stems from our pattern-seeking abilities. Religion, as an extension of that superstition, is another matter.

I further contend that various faith based belief systems have served as a great facilitator to the human race for time immemorial and have literally co-evolved with humanity.

That would depend on what you mean by 'facilitator'. It certainly has co-evolved, for the simple reason that it stems from something which was selected for, namely the aforementioned pattern-seeking ability. Of course, seeing patterns where there are none is merely superstition. It also isn't unique to humans. Indeed, superstitious behaviour has been observed in, among other things, birds. B.F. Skinner did a large-scale study on superstitious behaviour in pigeons in 1948, the details of which are quite illuminating in the context of this topic.

I contend that most every effort to thwart religiosity will ultimately fail due to it's inherent nature.

That's a very sweeping statement. I do think that there will always be religion, and of course I have no objection to that. I do object, however, when such inane superstition has an undue influence on the society in which I and my children live.

Similarly, I contend that the tendency for some to rail against this religious/superstitious aspect of human nature is normal in all populations and therefore most every attempt to thwart atheism will fail due to atheism's inherent nature. The point being that both are ancient human traits and fall well within the norn of human behavioral characteristics.

Quite, with the caveats already mentioned.

I've observed that some overly enthusiastic atheists believe (ahem.. have faith) that the natural tendency for humans to spirituality is universally bad for humanity. I contend that this is a subjective notion and therefore unuseful, uninteresting and somewhat ironic.

All opinions are subjective. Does that make them uninteresting or unuseful? The belief that a deity exists is also subjective; doesn't that make it also uninteresting and unuseful?

I contend that Christianity is built upon the most advanced notions of all the faith based constructs.

Errr, no. Perhaps you should look at the Ba'hai faith, which is considerably more advanced and progressive than any of the bronze-age mythologies. This may have something to do with its origins in the 19th century, which was well into the age of enlightenment. Of course, it still contains some of the carpet-bitingly insane principles found in bronze-age formulations of supernaturalist guff, such as the idea that homosexuals are somehow inferior, but there you go.

A close look at the words of Jesus Christ reveal that Jesus' primary message was one of universal love.

What? You mean words like these?

10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.    
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

We won't go into the introduction of hell, shall we?

Love that engenders compassion, charity, humility, forgiveness, etc. Christianity's tendency and capacity to mold people into civility is the primary reason that Christianity is the world's fastest growing religion.

Except, of course, that it isn't. Many adherents to various idiotic mythologies make this claim. Unfortunately, the statistics, which you should have familiarised yourself with before erecting this absurd claim, shows that Islam is growing a good deal quicker than christianity, both in terms of absolute numbers and in terms of percentage of population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_to_ ... g_religion

It provides facility for the social and spiritual needs of it's followers and holds love as it's core precept. Most importantly however, Christianity seems to represent the most sucessful paradigm construct for the taming of the uncivil masses that anyone has yet managed to dream up. It represents the cutting edge of religious evolution.

Perhaps you'd like to elucidate which particular one of the 30,000+ branches of christianity you think represents the cutting edge of religious evolution. Is it Roman Catholicism, which recently admitted that Galileo was right, or maybe one of the branches that thinks that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, and works tirelessly to keep our children stupid?

Oh, and I just love the implication of 'uncivil masses'. I think you'll find that the vast majority of the 'uncivil masses' are adherents to your brand of inane drivel.

Again, I think that the Ba'hai faith can more readily lay claim to that distinction.

I contend that, despite the fact that places of worship the world over are at least partially populated with atheists, the wisest atheists remain hidden within the flock because they know that fighting certain aspects of human nature are futile and personally unrewarding.

Your contentions are entirely subjective and therefore, by your logic, uninteresting and unuseful. I certainly agree with the latter, but not because of their subjectivity.

The atheist may make the case that humans are merely animated matter that has naturally come by the ability to think about itself.
The Christian considers and seeks the transformation of his/her's own behavioral nature as well as that of the community at large.

Both are wrong, but for different reasons.

Oh really? This should be fun.

The atheist assumes that he/she is has gathered all the necessary information and presumes to possess enough intellectual power to make the definitive determination that God does not exist.

Bzzzzzzzzz. Thank you for playing.

The atheist merely contends that no claims regarding the existence of celestial peeping-toms have sufficient evidential support. We withhold belief in any such claims until sufficient evidence is provided. In short, atheism makes no claims, it merely rejects the claims of others with regard to the existence of deities.

This is folly. The most one can claim concerning any subject that cannot be made yield to experimentation is that we don't/can't know. Religious believers offer no verifiable proofs but instead make it a matter of faith alone. This seems conveniently disingenuous. Therefore, who is more the fool, the one who blindly believes the unprovable, or the one who claims proof of the unprovable?

Dealt with this above.

I am happy because I see the truth.

Of course you do, dear boy. Of course you do. While we atheists, no doubt, are delusional.

Attempting to remove religion from humanity is futile, dangerous, and at the very minimum, mean spirited.

Mean-spirited? Being called mean-spirited by a theist is like (to paraphrase PC) being called yellow by a bunch of bananas. Go and look up Tomas de Torquemada and then come back and tell us about mean-spiritedness.

Dangerous? Perhaps you could expand on this. Of course, we love to embrace ex recto assertions with no support around here, because we have no critical thinking skills. Other enlightened ones like yourself might happen along later, though, and may require some sort of support or explanation for this.

These words contain the final piece to the conundrum of enlightenment.

I find it deliciously ironic that a supported of bronze-age ignorance can speak of enlightenment. Come back when you understand what enlightenment actually is.

Please recognize and take it for the gift that it is. Go in peace.

Ah, yes. Rectally extracted blind assertion. The gift that keeps on giving.

Edit: Brainflip

[Thinkbigger]

Limitations of time preclude me from answering these posts individually so please excuse this collage of responses.

I've observed that some overly enthusiastic atheists believe (ahem.. have faith) that the natural tendency for
humans to spirituality is universally bad for humanity. I contend that this is a subjective notion and therefore unuseful, uninteresting
and somewhat ironic.

So, subjectivity is all useless? That seems rather odd for a Christian (which I presume you are) to say, as
they almost always emphasize faith and religious experience, both of which are subjective.

Why do you "presume" I'm a Christian? Did you not read the entire post before raising your criticisms? I am not a Dallas Cowboy
cheerleader either but there are things that I appreciate about them.

I contend that Christianity is built upon the most advanced notions of all the faith based constructs.

Have you read the Old Testament lately?

Christ does not appear in the Old Testament.

EDIT: Also also, shouldn't this be moved to the religion forum?

Although I realize that I erroneously posted the The conundrum of enlightenment  post in the introductions area, I was mildly
disappointed when it was moved to the religious forum. Not disappointed about the fate of the post however, only the prejudice that
landed it there. This post was on the subject of atheism, prejudice, clear thinking and enlightenment. Though I asked no one to believe or have faith in anything but yourselves, I was treated as if I were a theist. In the context of this board I recognize this for the
slight that it was. The bias of this moderator (your buddy) is disappointing but not unexpected.  Que Sera Sera.

When I realized that you (Mr. Sandwich) were not quite interested enough in my post to thoroughly read and understand it, I decided I
would return the favor and move on to some of the more thoughtful and focused responses.



Mr. Tank,
I enjoyed reading your philosophical outline and applaud your clear thinking. Please don't worry about offending me. I hope you aren't
offended by my plain speaking either. My only disappointment was your misreading of my personal thinking/beliefs. I too am an Atheist but an Atheist who is not willing to throw the baby out with the bath water.

I wonder how it must sound to a person of faith when an Atheist complains of his/her brutal persecution by believers. Those poor
babies.To understand real persecution please reference the Jews or the early Christians and re-evaluate your empirical baseline for
suffering. I am not saying this of you but of those you referenced, an Atheist with thin skin is just another tiresome self absorbed
whiner. What keeps us from happiness lies 99% between our ears. My efforts for social change are directed towards criminals and people of rotten culture and not wasted on decent people who happen to be superstitious. I would no sooner waste my time with that than I would trying to stop the wind from blowing.

Your choices of expression , "surgery to cut out a cancer", "deep seated delusional world view", "Ah! Now this is where we get the
preachy bit, the bit where you do like a good little solider for delusion and witness for your faith", all serve to inform me of the
passion and ferocity you feel for those of whom you view as inferior and/or misguided. I suggest you switch from vinegar to honey. Your sales technique could use some refinement.

Please remember that you, I, and most other Atheists do not represent the average of humanity. If you think we do.. then you're wrong. We represent the exception rather than the rule. Atheists are generally of higher intellectual capacity and education than the average person and, as such, cannot realistically expect the masses to reach any new level of enlightenment beyond what they have already. You, to them, are just some S.O.B. who is putting them down for their core beliefs.. and who care much for that business?

This is why I am happy. I have learned to let it go. I have accepted the inevitability of certain things and this is one of them.

Besides, beyond your immediate family and friends, where is your responsibility to change or interfere with the lives of others? Who
asked you? How did this become your job? No one has ever asked me to save the world and I, for one, am thankful they haven't.
Peace is what you make of it. If you can't find peace without interfering with others, then that is your home-made cross to bear and I
wish you all the best.

I am looking forward to more exchanges with you my new acquaintance across the pond.

Peace be with you.




Mr. Pudding,

Forgive my bluntness but you sound damaged. Another poor persecuted Atheist suffering at the hands of those wicked Christians. Wimp much?

You, I, and Darwin himself, were born into the broth of a Christian cultural soup and have been stewing in it so long as to no longer be able to taste the quality of it flavor. Move to a part of the world that has never been Christianised and then I'll guarantee you'll be eager to rejoin the tamed masses of the Christianized western world.

Thank you for ending your post with a reference to manure. It is details such as that which serve to inform me the most as to the true character of the poster.

P@@p be with you.




Mr. Voter

Thank you for your words. A note of caution however. If you agree with me you will lose status amoung the more radical factions of this board.. if that means anything to you.

Peace to you as well.



Ms. elliebean

You must be the keeper of the venom. Please lash out at will and be the shining example the world needs to reach enlightenment. Bile much?

Peace baby.



Moderater Whitney,

Please moderate your tone.

I've read the forum rules and you are making up new ones just for me. Thank you for making me feel special. If my assertions are not presented for debate then why post here at all? Are you mad with power or just plain tired of thinking through new information?

Please get some rest.



Mr. Ken2468,

Spoken like a true scientist. No prejudice, no untested assumptions and no agenda. Kudos to you sir. Looking forward to reading your postings.

Peace be with you.



Mr. wildfire,

Some fools fool themselves I guess.. but their not fooling me.



Mr. hackenslash,

I feel like I know you from college. You were that one quintessentially rigid ideologue with a nasty side that he voyeuristically enjoyed exposing. You were condescending, argumentative, dismissive and even cryptic at times. The perfect liberal progressive hater. Don't be surprised when no one asks you to be the point man in the Pro-Atheism effort.

You misidentified me as a non-atheist.. so much for higher education eh? Who are you really.. Alan Combes?

[AnimatedDirt]

You, I, and Darwin himself, were born into the broth of a Christian cultural soup and have been stewing in it so long as to no longer be able to taste the quality of it flavor. Move to a part of the world that has never been Christianised and then I'll guarantee you'll be eager to rejoin the tamed masses of the Christianized western world.

Many things on the OP I can appreciate and agree with, not because I'm a Christian, but because it seems the most logical of positions to take as an Atheist.  However, none do I agree with more than the above quote.  As personal proof, I've visited Eastern Europe half a dozen times and life without God is very monotonous and unsatisfying.  100% that way?  No, but it is the majority of the scene I've seen and the way many have depicted their life there to me.