NoGodBlog.com

wesley pruden is a long-time white supremacist, as was his father..they(pruden and his associates) are hate-spewing ,draft-dodging,war-mongering chickenshits of the first order....hopefully i'll never see his name again after hitting send

Yes, these Christians are either intellectual cowards or dangerously naive.

In over 30 studies completed throughout the 20th century the consensus is clear, even among Christian researchers: "More intelligent people tend not to believe in religion."

-see study results at www.branchbrothers.net/write.htm
(10" down under "Intelligence and Religion"

I honestly think the religious right thought that atheists would sit quietly by and take all the lies and insults they have been dishing out over the years. They didn't expect such a minority to stand up on the grounds of reason and challenge the believers. How are atheists "immoral", what makes them evil, exactly? How does the RR measure up to their own standards? Now that some prominent authors have had the guts to get out there and "raise a little hell", I guess these guys really are becoming fearful.

Good.

There is a sea change in America and the RR are scared. I walked by the US Capital building today in washington DC and thought about the promise of America for this British gay boy and I got really sappy. yesterday I saw Andrew Sullivan at Results gayb gym but he had the IPOD IN SO I COUDNT TALKT O HIM. GOD IM BLOGGIN DRunk.
Alexander

pruden is a has-been.i would not get too worked up over him.as one of those evil conservatives i am more worried by growing national debt then some two bit writer.

Wow, I lost count of the strawmen, ad hominems and non sequiturs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America#Causes_for_secession


I found the part about "atheistic" abolitionism paticularly hilarious.

southern christians should get a pass on slavery because it wasn't illegal and the bible allows it.

My, my my . . . I believe we have indeed riled the sanctimonius Mr. Pruden. Shame on the likes of we thinking heathens.

. . . "the faith the authors clearly envy" ?! What atheist clearly envies the faith of a fundie christian? And to think such an ignorant atheophobe is the Editor-in Chief of the Washington Times! My _Freethought Today_ came in the mail today-- I think I'll turn off this computer and read it.

Now that was a good article...filled with nothing but true facts...well, all except one line...

Prof. Dawkins warns that America, with its law, literature and customs rooted in Judeo-Christian religion, is slipping into nothing less than a new Dark Age

Mr. Dawkins obviously doesn't read this blog...otherwise he'd know how AA pushes "the Myth..."

But one line was really funny...

Atheists are organizing. They have their registered lobbyist now on Capitol Hill

One lobbyist...? Sheesh...someone's throwing one too many parties...

Phreedy

Did you look for a job today? I don't think your mom is going to let you sit around the house and make a fool of yourself on the internet too much longer.

Now here's an off topic news story that I'm sure you won't hear on the local news...

Dutch shock over gay AIDS rape gang

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070531170047.loblqusq&show_article=1

Alex and mdetrano

I think you are correct. They do fear us and there is a sea change coming mighty soon.

It was all hastened by the RR making a pact with BushCo. They traded a couple Supremes for their undying support. I have a feeling the RR got screwed in the deal. Of course this highly political court will not show their hand until after BushCo is gone but when they do Roberts and Alito will distinguish themselves as pro-corporate globalists rather than anti-antiabortionists.

The RR lent their support to a group that doesn't give a damn about anything but their greed and has worked hard to destroy middleclass america. Could the Phreedy's of this world shot a bigger hole in their collective foot?

Looks like the ACLU beat AA to the punch...

Valedictorian's Speech About Christ Prompts Controversy

http://www.news4jax.com/news/13401043/detail.html

Let's see how many defend her constitutional rights...

Phreedy

How many different ways can you pin an "I'm an Idiot" sign on your back?

What, here might be one appropriate sign. It could also be used for the 101st fighting keyboarders.

http://home.mnet-online.de/reger24/fundstuecke-1/intel-inside-idiot-outside.jpg

Poopy-heads at least explains their potty mouths!

phreedummars:
For 20 minutes she sodomized her freedom down everyone’s throat. If she wanted to give a sermon, she should go to church and give it where people want it. This put everyone there into being in a FORCED sermon. Just because some, like you, like to be sodomized with all this crap all the time, does not mean we have to accept it.

OT, has anyone noticed Graham's picture in today's news looks like he is an angry and scared man?

Let's see how many defend her constitutional rights...

...Except her speech isn't constitutionally protected...As determined by the majestic nine, in a case brought up by mormons & RCs.

Zing!

Prof. Dawkins warns that America, with its law, literature and customs rooted in Judeo-Christian religion,

I don't think anyone here doubts this, but you're projecting law = constitution, which is incorrect.

I still have to deal with blue laws, which are based solely on nonsense (babble), rather than for any sensible reason. I can't sneeze w/o people saying 'god bless you', more religious nonsense about souls flying out of your nose & momentarily being demonically possed. And....literature.

Once again, these things have nothing to do w/ the constitution, peddle your wares elsewhere gramps.

A couple of paragraphs lifted from the article on the Wolfson High School (Jacksonville, FL) valedictorian Shannon Spaulding's speech:
_____________________________________
The valedictorian's speech was about Jesus Christ and suggested those who don't believe would go to hell.

"I want to tell you that Jesus Christ can give you eternal life in heaven," Spaulding said before the crowd. "If we die with that sin on our souls, we will immediately be pulled down to hell to pay the eternal price for our sins ourselves."

"I was not trying to force anything on anybody. I just wanted to tell them something I knew was important to me and wanted to have them a chance to hear," Spaulding said.
______________________________________
She wasn't trying to force anything on anybody?????

And here, silly me, I thought xians held to that commandment about not lying.

What the girl did was despicable. A graduation ceremony is not the place to give a sermon. She absolutely did force her beliefs on others, and I'm sure ruined the event for some of the graduates. Shame!

And besides that, if she was quoted correctly, her use of the English langauage doesn't say much for somebody who was valedictorian.

Pruden's article didn't seem to have much point to it, except to snipe.
He doesn't "get" atheists at all, either.

I'd like to know more about this September convention though.

I took me approximately two sentences to realize that I was reading the words of an idiot. Kinda like that fella obsessed with ...

I'm not surprised at Pruden's venue. Why does anybody even give a dead effing rat's ass what's published in the WT--can you say 'Moonies'? Anyone who goes there for their 'news' needs to be taken out behind the woodshop and....well, I'd better leave it there. *grin*

Phreedm:

Now that was a good article...filled with nothing but true facts...

As opposed to untrue facts?

Phreedm,
Something similar but completely unconstitutional happened at our local school district graduations. Round Rock Superintendent Chavez allowed the kids to vote if they wanted to include prayer/invocation as part of the graduation ceremony. I called Chavez and explained there may be a day when my kid gets up there and says christians are too stupid to know the bible is a fairytale. He said we teach our kids not to call people stupid to which I said fine, ignorant. I then said that a majority may want to praise allah and that may happen at a future graduation. I hope he got the message but I don't know. He did mention that in Round Rock the teachers review the valedictorian speech before they speak. I just let him know that as he thinks it's ok to invoke god there may be a time when we invoke reason and ridicule believers so be aware that it may come back to bite him.

But TX, regardless of whether the vote is yes or no, the principle can't hold a vote on whether or not to break the law.

RE:
"somebody is always trying out for village idiot or village atheist. Often they're one and the same."

I went to the article and read the link. It's amazing that people write like that in this age of political correctness. Why would he write that? My guess is that he doesn't know any Atheists or has never really heard their arguments. It is so much easier to be mean to the hypothetical monster that one has created inside their own head, but the monster only exists in their own head.

Apparently, the guy also doesn't have any friends that knows Atheists either, or the friend would have corrected him.

...Bernie of FreeGoodNews.com

Can anyone even begin to imagine what the reaction would have been if the Jacksonville, FL, gal who was valedictorian had been an atheist and presented her views on the fantasy of the bible?

TXAtheist said:
"I just let him know that as he thinks it's ok to invoke god there may be a time when we invoke reason and ridicule believers so be aware that it may come back to bite him."

I think that is a poor example. There are many Christian scientists, Michael Behe to name just one (there are many, many more). They are not unreasonable.

The argument about letting other religious people speak is a very good one. Of course Christians (Catholic & Protestant) don't want to see a Muslim, Mormon, or Wiccan expressing their faith in a public graduation ceremony.

I think that one thing Christians need to learn is that our nation has shifted in religious demographics. The nation was founded by those who believe in God (Christians, Jews, and Deists). There were virtually no Atheists and Muslims at the time of the birth of our USA nation. Growth, and especially immigration, over the centuries has changed all that to make us a religiously diverse nation. That is why we are now having the "culture wars."

Just my thoughts.

...Bernie of FreeGoodNews.com

Heathnz,
That is correct. That's why AU notified him of the error and he said the school lawyers said he was in the right. That's why I called, to let him know a local was upset about the constitutional violation. I was just giving him examples of what could happen if we decide to break the rules/constitution.

bdehler,
Behe is a smart guy but he's also a rare exception to the rule. He understands evolution but can't let go of his irreducible complexity idea. I was giving an extreme analogy. The valedictorian was saying the only way was to accept Jesus. I am fine without JC. She is wrong to think I need him. My point was to foolishly blast an entire group because of my religious view. Of the 48,000 known scientists 700 agree with ID/creationism.
Some xians do accept pluralism. John Spong and Barry Lynn are good ministers in my view. (mormons are christians).
I agree our nation was founded by Deists/unitarians and Pat Henry, the only outright christian. They were also secularists because they saw how corrupt the church was in europe. They also realized what happened to heretics and it happened to Tom Paine for his writings. I think the culture wars boil down to the fundamentalist who are greedy and do things that benefit themselves and the liberals who realize there are more important things than power and money. That's my view. I'll check out your site and email if you wish to continue this and not clog up the AA blog. md457@hotmail.com

TXAtheist said:
"They also realized what happened to heretics and it happened to Tom Paine for his writings."

Don't forget, Thomas Paine was a Deist. I hear many Atheists refer to him as a "Free Thinker" as if he was an Atheist. He wrote against Atheism in "The Age of Reason."

...Bernie of FreeGoodNews.com

TXAtheist said:
"Of the 48,000 known scientists 700 agree with ID/creationism."

700 may be a large number given the discrimination against ID in the Scientific Establishment.

RE:
"Iowa State Faculty Admit Intelligent Design Played Role in Scientist’s Tenure Denial"

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=4064&program=DI%20Main%20Page%20-%20News&callingPage=discoMainPage

See especially the last paragraph.

...Bernie of FreeGoodNews.com

christians' actions are mostly selfish...they want to go to heaven...not true altruism...i as a militant atheist act out of my own kind of selfishness...it is kindness out of self respect and respect for the FEELINGS, not the BELIEFS of others. we get no reward yet we can be kind anyway.i do not respect a kind act if the person being nice is doing it for a dog-bone or eternal happiness for himself....i'd rather you just passed me on by with that untrue act...save it for someone who can pretend to appreciate it.

imaskeptic said:
"christians' actions are mostly selfish...they want to go to heaven...not true altruism..."

I think that's bad logic. It is like saying someone is selfish for brushing their teeth because they don't want to lose them or they don't want to feel pain at the Dentist.

Self-preservation is natural and not selfish. Eternal life is a belief and hope regarding self-preservation.

imaskeptic also said:
"i do not respect a kind act if the person being nice is doing it for a dog-bone or eternal happiness for himself....i'd rather you just passed me on by with that untrue act"

Maybe everyone works for a "dog bone." Maybe in your case the "dog bone" is feeling better about yourself and your contribution to this world in making it a better place. I think everyone has a motivation for reaching out, or else they wouldn't do it.

I also doubt you'd pass on help from a religious person if you were really desperate for help. You are thirsty in a dessert, but you'd reject a glass of ice water because a Christian offers it to you in the name of Christ? I don't think so. I'd take it, no matter what words came attached to it. I wouldn't let my pride or ego kill me. Just accept it and thank them (then convince them why they are wrong ;-)

...Bernie of FreeGoodNews.com

bdehler

I think that is a poor example. There are many Christian scientists, Michael Behe to name just one (there are many, many more). They are not unreasonable.

Just a tip, but you probably don't want to cite Behe as your primary example around here. The scientific community has thoroughly debunked and rejected his ideas as unfalsifiable pseudoscience.

The nation was founded by those who believe in God (Christians, Jews, and Deists). There were virtually no Atheists and Muslims at the time of the birth of our USA nation.

I don't know why anybody would be surprised by that. Full blown atheism only began to make sense as a viable philosophical position about 150 years ago.

I checked out your site and read your thoughts on Tom Pain:

But Paine also ridicules the Atheist who says there is no evidence for God (people like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, who I would label as "Atheist Evangelists" because they are evangelizing for the Atheist "belief system"). I find it interesting that Paine agrees with the Apostle Paul, in that creation, in and by itself, is more than enough evidence for a Creator.

Of course it wouldn't have made sense to Pain to reject a creator god outright. He lived in an age before darwinian evolution gave us a viable alternative to a divine watchmaker. And that is why we have guys like Behe looking into the gaps of our knowledge (even in places where a gap has clearly been filled) and setting up a fake barrier called "irreducible complexity" - Because Behe and his peers clearly understand that the entire notion of any god at all is exactly what is at stake.

I'd be willing to bet that if Pain had been our contemporary he would've been an atheist. In any case, he was still a doubter and that is why we tend to claim him as one of our own.


Anyway, I really wish your site was a blog. There's a lot there I would love to comment on. ;)

your goal is to get to heaven...no matter what....is that correct?...will wait for answer

if i can help it,my welfare will never be in the hands of someone with a motive suited to the advancement of his own cause...the outcome will depend not on my situation, but on it's relationship between the good-deed-doer and his "goal"...it will have virtually nothing to do with me...when confronted with any situation requiring kindness,the act to me is its own reward...i have no long-term goals requiring the brown-nosing of an invisible man (who's making a list and checking it twice)

bdehler

TXAtheist said:
"Of the 48,000 known scientists 700 agree with ID/creationism."

700 may be a large number given the discrimination against ID in the Scientific Establishment.

This argument has always perplexed me. Discrimination? How exactly is science supposed to be conducted, in your view? As a post modern free-for-all where every claim is given equal weight no matter what the methods used or amount/quality of evidence?

Of course science should 'discriminate' against fringe claims that can't hold their own in the lab or field.

Oh, and that 700 figure? Even more unimpressive than you think:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/few_biologists.html

r4d
Bernie does have a blog, here:

http://fgn.typepad.com/

bdehler,
Guiterrez scored well at ISU but didn't bring in grant money nor get peer reviewed articles written. It's not all about scores.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/05/alas_poor_guillermo_gonzalez.php

karen,

Arrrgh - I'm blind! That's exactly where I went but for some reason I didn't see the comment link.

oh boy oh boy oh boy... (rubbing hands together)

TXAtheist,
RE: Guiterrez

I read the link you gave.

It is hard to know the truth. I'm sure the decision to reject tenure was made behind closed doors, and they want the info to stay closed. Therefore, it is ultimately all speculation. It's like a gay peson getting fired from their job. Was it because of prejudice or bad performance? One would never know unless those who made the decision honestly tell it.

Rainbows4dinosaurs said:
"Full blown atheism only began to make sense as a viable philosophical position about 150 years ago."

When Thomas Paine wrote "the Age of Reason" he said Atheism was sweeping the land (in France, I believe). It really concerned him because he thought it was an overboard reaction to the abuse from the Church-State relationship. That was 200 years ago. Paine died around the same time Darwin was born. I know your point and agree that Darwin was the main thrust for the Atheism movement.

So now we have it- God vs. Evolution. The question everyone needs to understand themselves is whether evolution can explain everything regarding how we got here (without any Creator God). Richard Dawkins sees how creation happened by nature alone. Michael Behe sees God's design in creation.

Personally, I'm digging more into it to find out more details. Most, however, don't have the time or interest and depend on their Priest for an answer, whether that Priest is dressed as a clergy man or a Professor. Personally, I'm boning-up on the latest in biochemistry and "origin of life" studies to find my answers.

...Bernie

bdehler

When Thomas Paine wrote "the Age of Reason" he said Atheism was sweeping the land (in France, I believe). It really concerned him because he thought it was an overboard reaction to the abuse from the Church-State relationship. That was 200 years ago.

And I would've had to agree with him at the time. France certainly became an overreaction - 'Church Of Reason' and chopping off heads and all that. Honestly, I can sympathize with Pain's deism when trying to imagine his historical vantage point.

So now we have it- God vs. Evolution. The question everyone needs to understand themselves is whether evolution can explain everything regarding how we got here (without any Creator God).

I think there's a bit more to it than that. Pretty much all of modern science tends to fly in the face of any literal or even moderately literal interpretation of ancient texts. This shouldn't come as any surprise, except for the curious fact that some of these ancient texts have been deemed infallible truths.

Even in the late 18th century, Pain was able to toss out every thing except the one thing he couldn't deny nor explain - the fact that we are here at all. I think you would agree that this is the main starting point for any religion. Evolution has done such a fantastic job of explaining the amazing complexity and diversity of life (and cosmology has given us testable explanations for the formation of the heavens) that it is now reasonable to not only reject man-made religion but contemplate a universe devoid of any intelligent first cause.

You mentioned Dawkins. Have you read his book yet?

Personally, I'm digging more into it to find out more details. Most, however, don't have the time or interest and depend on their Priest for an answer, whether that Priest is dressed as a clergy man or a Professor.

Ha! Nice. Well, I don't have one 'priest' I get all my answers from (nor one special book), and my 'priests' are also amenable to argument and evidence.

Personally, I'm boning-up on the latest in biochemistry and "origin of life" studies to find my answers.

That's great! But don't limit yourself to microbiology. The evidence is overwhelming in every field. Also, I know that it's the ID tactic to claim that microbiology is a 'black box.' I suspect that if you choose to do some digging outside of the D.I. echo chamber you are going to be in for quite a surprise.

...mocking those who have the faith the authors clearly envy.

What is that!?!? Why would we envy the ability to easily accept and believe the obviously false without ever questioning it at all?

Dutch shock over gay AIDS rape gang

Look, phreedm, we are not trying to say that all gay people are good people. What we are trying to say is that gay people are not any more likely to commit rape and other crimes than straight people are.

TXatheist

"Of the 48,000 known scientists 700 agree with ID/creationism."

Say what? 48,000? Where? If only one percent of just the US population are scientists that would give us 3,000,000 in the US alone. So what the heck was that number about? Do you mean members of the NSF?

And now, a bit of an off-topic thing:
http://xkcd.com/c154.html

bdehler:

The nation was founded by those who believe in God (Christians, Jews, and Deists). There were virtually no Atheists and Muslims at the time of the birth of our USA nation.

Ahem. I do hope you're referring to the USA, because atheism itself extends well back to ancient Greece (Epicurus, Lucretius, Democritus) as well as India (Gosala), & well into the 18th, 19th, & 20th centuries.
Hume, Wright (Elizur), d'Holbach.
It's a long list.
I'm doing a 'Profiles in Atheism' series at my blog, for anyone interested.

Don't forget, Thomas Paine was a Deist. I hear many Atheists refer to him as a "Free Thinker" as if he was an Atheist. He wrote against Atheism in "The Age of Reason."

I'm a huge fan of Paine's, but I'll be the 1st to admit he got quite a few things wrong.
Being a freethinker & a deist is not necessarily a contradiction in terms.

I find it interesting that Paine agrees with the Apostle Paul, in that creation, in and by itself, is more than enough evidence for a Creator.

That was also, how many years ago?
The argument from design is actually quite weak, on further inspection.

Jesin
Funny.
Also, too frickin' sadly true.

Apostate i really enjoy the work of lucretius.
this is off topic but did you see where bush talked about being in iraq for decades.where does he think the men and money will come from.

"did you see where bush talked about being in iraq for decades.where does he think the men and money will come from."

BushCo and the Reich wing are looking at total political repudiation, GOP anhililation and the end of a rope.

Rainbows4dinosaurs said:
"You mentioned Dawkins. Have you read his book yet?"

I have his book but haven't read it yet. I started Sam Harris' book. I will also get to Hitchins. I've heard podcast interviews with Dawkins and Harris and Hitchins... still listening. I hear a lot of good points from Atheists, but also what I consider to be stupid negativity. I'm listening to at least 5 Atheist podcasts. I think the podcast I like the best is "Infidel Guy - Debate Hour" on iTunes. I also heard "The Better Atheist" and like that host, but they don't seem to have very many episodes. I won't tell you who I don't like, so their fans don't get up-in-arms. The ones I don't like are sarcastic ones and ones who don't seem very balanced with the truth. Infidel Guy may be sarcastic, but it is kind of an intellectual sarcasm rather than just a snide sarcasm.

...Bernie of FreeGoodNews.com

reason:

this is off topic but did you see where bush talked about being in iraq for decades.where does he think the men and money will come from.

Yeah, I caught that at Meyers' blog (Pharyngula) - he's getting pretty strung out. Snap soon, I bet (but hope not).
Where will the men & money come from?
On high, of course.
& when gawd doesn't provide, we'll all be royally screwed.

bdehler

ID is not a theory. It describes nothing. It predicts nothing. So you can't compare it to existing theory because there is nothing to compare.

Bark at the moon all you want.

bdehler:

When Thomas Paine wrote "the Age of Reason" he said Atheism was sweeping the land (in France, I believe). It really concerned him because he thought it was an overboard reaction to the abuse from the Church-State relationship.

You couldn't be more wrong.
"As to the Christian system of faith, it appears to me as a species of atheism; a sort of religious denial of God. It professes to believe in a man rather than in God. It is a compound made up chiefly of man-ism with but little deism, and is as near to atheism as twilight is to darkness. It introduces between man and his Maker an opaque body, which it calls a redeemer, as the moon introduces her opaque self between the earth and the sun, and it produces by this means a religious or an irreligious eclipse of light. It has put the whole orbit of reason into shade."
- Age of Reason, Part 1.
The only paragraph that mentions atheism, in fact.

TX:

I agree our nation was founded by Deists/unitarians and Pat Henry, the only outright christian.

Ummm...no.
Benjamin Rush was an xtian. The 3 deists were Paine, Jefferson, & Franklin.
G. Washington was a lukewarm religious fellow.
There was a lot more in the mix. Presbyters, Episcopals, etc.

only the uninformed would write god vs evolution.....evolution is a fact whether santa claus exists or not....you cannot live in the present world and say you are intelligent and educated, and fail to see god vs evolution in everyday life... a cow shits in its own vagina...it isn't pretty but it doesn't kill the species....did jesus's daddy rig up this system?did he give me this vermiform appendix i don't need? if so he's dumber than the dirt he's older than.

evolution is a snare to deceive you arrogant atheists who envy the rich and profound faith of pruden.stick your head in a cows vagina and tell me you won't cry out to god to save your wretched self.
what does being intelligent or educated have to do with anything look at congress.they are running the country and they are neither.
knowledge is sin stay away from it.

I envy a fundementalsts faith about as much as he/she envies my ability to see through a fairy tale. Stick my head in a cows vagina?? That isn't very christian is it? Being educated maked it difficult to suspend disbelief. Do you still believe in Santa?

KA,
um...yes. Unitarianism does not exclude xianity as a concept but it's also very pluralistic. From wikipedia.
Ben Rush:
He is generally deemed Presbyterian and was a founder of the Philadelphia Bible Society.[6] He was an advocate for Christianity in public life and in particular in education. In line with that, he advocated Scriptures as a text book in the public schools.[7]
That stated, he may have had Universalist leanings, as the following quote on education seems to imply.[8] It states, "Such is my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of the Deity, or a future state of rewards and punishments, that I had rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mahomed inculcated upon our youth, than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles. But the religion I mean to recommend in this place, is that of the New Testament."[9]

bdehler

You're going to read all three books back to back and you're listening to 5 different podcasts? Wow - you're even more into to it than I am. ;)

Personally, I find the debating skills of atheist podcasters to be somewhat embarrassing. I do like it when Bob Price does his 'Bible Geek' thing on Infidel Guy's show, but that's about it.

reason....are you sure you have selected the correct name for yourself? wouldn't something like "completely irrational" be more descriptive? I think you may have a misunderstanding of the term "arrogant" too...arrogance is supercilliousness...i don't believe i have ever been supercillious...seems like i'd remember something like that...it would be enough for me just to be cillious...unless being cillious means placing my large head into a cows naughty bits...i won't be cowed into that!...that would just be plain cilly

imaskeptic
You haven't been cillious, but you have been super.
reason definitely has his own, um, style. Often misinterpreted by those who aren't used to him.

Everyone, please leave the cows alone. Isn't their plight enough as it is? Have mercy.

hehehe..karen, i am blushing ....i agree about these poor animals...the cows on my father's farm are covered by every imaginable parasite and swelled up for months carrying babies in the hot sun.......finally getting to McDonalds as a box of quarter-inch patties will be a heavenly release for them.... P.S. i don't see how someone telling me to peer closely into a bovine bum can be misunderstood...but i'll take your word for reason's reasoning and go off to bother my father's horses

imaskeptic
In my best estimation, that was reason's mimicry of a theist, which he does-or seems to do- from time to time out of the blue. Often he goes right on into his "normal" line of speaking without any break, so one has to read it carefully.

Of course, reason would have to speak for himself; I'm only guessing, as I usually do with his responses.

Happy Equus Trails to you ♪♪♪ !

LOL...the sons of the pioneers only wish they could sing like that!!!.....sorry reason...i stand corrected...as you have probably surmised..i have a "hare"-trigger when it comes to farm animals...i'm going back on my medication as soon as i get my medical license back...(licensing bureau sure has no sense of humor about giving patients their clothes back only when they pay their co-pay)

Karen (Reason too)

"reason definitely has his own, um, style. Often misinterpreted by those who aren't used to him."

Maybe Reason is a nun getting in a little internet surfing. When her Big Sis walks by and catches her on the NoGodBlog she starts sticking-it too those atheists thereby receiving a nodding approval from Big Sis. But when the cats away ... Hiss, Scratch .. and Purr too.

Are you sure that reason isn't being sarcastic? That post was either genuinely one of the most idiotic things I have heard in a while, or it was pretty subtly sarcastic.

On a related note, someone whose name I forgot said that these days it is nearly impossible to make a parody of fundamentalism that will not be easily mistaken for the real thing.

yes Jesin i was being sarcastic.life is short at least we can smile at the insanity around us now and then.
karen hope your having a good weekend
well everyone have a great week i'm off on a business trip where i get to make a non subtle display of my ignorance.

reason

Safe travels.
If you're flying, ask everyone around you if they have TB! (Or any other contagious disease)
;)

sorry for my sarcastic reply to your sarcastic reply reason....what the hell are we even talking about?

Jesin

"it is nearly impossible to make a parody of fundamentalism that will not be easily mistaken for the real thing."

So true!

Bon Voyage Reason.

BushCo's latest attempt to scare US citizens is an alleged "Plot to bomb JFK". As with all such "plots" to date the case will turn out to be all fizzle and no sizzle. Why am I posting this here? Because this "government"'s only remaining supporters, amongst the non-billionaire class, is the religious right.

What: I haven't heard you be wrong in regard to Bushmush yet. I was just reading in the loco paper yesterday that W is leading the fight against global warming. (That's about as true as In. Gov. pitch-a-bitch Mitch doesn't aim to sell out Indiana) These idiots are laughable but their intent is not. If Mitch wanted to somehow help he should offer to use all the barren space above his eyes to reflect harmful rays. W can't be helped but at least should be reminded of the Kyoto emissions standards and the harmful results of his neglect of the public instead of compromising on his sweet deals with his money and power groping rw extremist cohorts.

hominid

Already the truth is starting to trickle out about BushCo's latest attempt to scare the religious sheep into following him all the way into the slaughter house. This was reported by CNN today:

Homeland Security sources said there is no current threat at the airport and the attack as planned was "not technically feasible."

Baaaahhh Baaaahhh Bleat

Rainbows4dinosaurs said:
"bdehler... You're going to read all three books back to back and you're listening to 5 different podcasts? Wow - you're even more into to it than I am. ;)"

I recently got an iPOD and discovered iTunes and all the free podcasts there. I also started daily workouts. Listening to podcasts and doing the elliptical is a great combo- killing 2 birds with one stone. It makes me really look forward to exercising daily.

Also-

RE: Krystalline Apostate said I was wrong when I said Thomas Paine was also writing against Atheism, as the people of France were rushing towards Atheism. Here is the quote from "The Age of Reason," in the Appendix "Letters concerning "The Age of Reason", Dover Publications version, pg. 205:

"In the second place, the people of France were running headlong into Atheism, and I had the work translated and published in their own language to stop them in that career, and fix them to the first article (as I have before said) of every man's creed who has any creed at all, I believe in God.

I have another book version (Citadel Press) of "The Age of Reason" and it doesn't have this appendix, but it has a lengthy introduction not in the Dover publication.

...Bernie of FreeGoodNews.com

Bernie:

RE: Krystalline Apostate said I was wrong when I said Thomas Paine was also writing against Atheism, as the people of France were rushing towards Atheism. Here is the quote from "The Age of Reason," in the Appendix "Letters concerning "The Age of Reason", Dover Publications version, pg. 205:

You are wrong.
1st off, the Age of Reason is readily available for free online, 2nd off, I have a copy on my HD, 3rd off, 'in the 2nd place' is a distinct anachronism (20th CE neologism, I think).
I quoted the ONLY section that mentioned atheism AT ALL.
The actual quote is as follows:

"The circumstance that has now taken place in France, of the total abolition of the whole national order of priesthood, and of everything appertaining to compulsive systems of religion, and compulsive articles of faith, has not only precipitated my intention, but rendered a work of this kind exceedingly necessary, lest, in the general wreck of superstition, of false systems of government, and false theology, we lose sight of morality, of humanity, and of the theology that is true."

I'd advise you read the originals, rather than those Reader's Digest abridged versions.

What: I totally agree with what you say about the latest JFK airport scare which is just that a scare. This cheap tactic and hysteria gimmick to divert attention away from his failed policy and to somehow lend himself as legitimate as made W look and sound even more funny than he already did. What I've listened to so far about this JFK business all leads to the conclusion that such a plot to hit the airport through the pipelines would be next to impossible. After 9-11 and the fall of the WTC I would not want to make the mistake of underestimating the designs or determination of would-be destructive forces on our shores. However, there is still such a thing as making a mountain out of a molehill and allowing fear to takeover or to be used as a tool as say Hitler once did.

Krystalline Apostate said:
"I'd advise you read the originals, rather than those Reader's Digest abridged versions."

I do have the original and the quote you gave. I knew it was in there somewhere, but didn't want to take time looking for it, when I did find an applicable quote from the Appendix of my version. If you would have looked-up the publication I stated I had, you would have known that it was a copy and not a "reader's digest" or any other "digest" type of publication.

The quote you gave proves my point that he was also writing against Atheism. Yes, he wrote more against Christianity, but he also wrote against Atheism strongly, as he was a Deist. As for what he would believe nowadays if alive today, who knows... maybe he would be like former Atheist Anthony Flew who recently turned Deist.

...Bernie of FreeGoodNews.com

bdehler:

I do have the original and the quote you gave. I knew it was in there somewhere, but didn't want to take time looking for it, when I did find an applicable quote from the Appendix of my version. If you would have looked-up the publication I stated I had, you would have known that it was a copy and not a "reader's digest" or any other "digest" type of publication.

Either quote the original(s), or don't bother. This is how communication gets tangled up. Quoting a retrofitted version loses much of the taste of it.

The quote you gave proves my point that he was also writing against Atheism. Yes, he wrote more against Christianity, but he also wrote against Atheism strongly, as he was a Deist. As for what he would believe nowadays if alive today, who knows... maybe he would be like former Atheist Anthony Flew who recently turned Deist.

I'm fairly aware of all Paine's writings. He wasn't overly fond of it, but he barely mentioned it more than a few times (note the prior quote I gave you - 06/02/07 @ 04:20).
It doesn't really prove your point. Deism really doesn't have much in the way of theology anyways.
As I said before, Paine got a few things wrong along the way.
Also, if Paine MEANT atheism, he'd have SAID atheism. That's 1 of the things I admire about the man: he spoke his mind, the circumstances be damned.
(That's a figure of speech only, & I fully intend to keep it. ;P).

Krystalline-

Here's a link to the version of Paine's book I have so you can see that it is the original, plus an appendix you don't seem to have:

http://www.amazon.com/Age-Reason-Dover-Value-Editions/dp/0486433935

There are a few versions here and there because it is an old book. Some add an appendix, some an intro, etc. The main content is the same.

Therefore, there was nothing wrong about my quote. It was from Paine's actual writing, and it was a letter in response to a critic of his original work, so it is all very applicable. Don't fault me because my version of the publication (apparently) has your content plus some more extras.

...Bernie of FreeGoodNews.com

bdehler:

Here's a link to the version of Paine's book I have so you can see that it is the original, plus an appendix you don't seem to have:

Here's the online, free version.
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/

Therefore, there was nothing wrong about my quote. It was from Paine's actual writing, and it was a letter in response to a critic of his original work, so it is all very applicable. Don't fault me because my version of the publication (apparently) has your content plus some more extras.

I'm faulting you because
A. your version has been tampered w/ (I mean, COME ON - 'In the second place'? Are you kidding me?), &
B. you're obviously fond of the alteration as opposed to the original, because it says what you think it meant, as opposed to what it says.
Which is standard fare.
No allegory's involved here.