Aggressive Atheism

Submitted by: Enomai 4 years ago

Pat Condell explains why religions don"t deserve your respect. No distracting music or boobs.
There are 120 comments:
Female 12
epic win, flawless victory XD
0
Reply
Male 434
To borrow some of jendrian`s words: just because YOU can`t understand God, that doesn`t mean God isn`t real, it means you`re not open enough to understand Him. (Or you`re not really trying)
Or something like that, LOL.
0
Reply
Male 434
"As for peer review: Well it`s another scientist backing up the first one. So if two priests say they had the same experience under identical circumstances regarding God, that they were able to repeat the experiment, is that any different?"

Any thoughts? A lot of people experience God every day and have seen things that they consider evidence. (weeping statues, stigmata, full blown miracles) Why are they wrong? The problem I think is repeatability. Say you get something you pray for, by chance or divine intervention. There`s no guarantee of it happening again, but that doesn`t change the fact that it happened.
0
Reply
Male 434
@jadoing: just because YOU can`t understand the science, that doesn`t mean the science is wrong, it means you`re not educated enough to understand it.

I wasn`t implying it was. I was asking what does the average layperson have to guarantee it is right, not falsified, or as close to right as it can be given the circumstances.

Somehow I knew you were a physicist or someone equally trained. LOL.
0
Reply
Male 434
Hey Angillion, good to see you.
So we`ve established that science has a system of peer review to keep it honest. I can accept that. Should I always blindly accept facts as presented by science then? Or at least be certain, that soon, if there is a problem it will come out in the wash?
Religion should be open to the same scrutiny in my opinion. I think it is, just most people don`t think so.
I know my example was silly, but it was just an example. I don`t really think there is a huge conspiracy surrounding the LHC. To supply a reason for it though: Greed. Fame. One source says it cost 7.4 billion dollars. Spend a billion making a fake and you`ve got 6.4 left to play with. I know, silly, but it`s an answer.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Now, when I said "how do we know the equipment functions as it is said to?" I didn`t mean how do we know its not broken, but how do we know its not a flim-flam machine? a good con-man could con a world if done right. I know, unlikely, but impossible? I don`t think so.[/quote]

The degree of conspiracy required would be enough by itself to make it so unlikely that it`s reasonable to treat it as impossible. Why would every person capable of replicating the experiment agree to lie about it?

But that`s not the only thing. Science rarely remains purely theoretical for very long. At least some aspect of it is used for developing something physical, sooner or later. Nowadays, usually very much sooner. When that happens, even if there was the ridiculously unlikely conspiracy in place, it would be exposed. If widget X is even partially based on fake science, it won`t work and everyone+dog will notice.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
like I said, it`s not like nobody was doing what we consider science today, it`s just that "mainstream science" was philosophical thought, thanks to Aristotle.

Yes, I made a mistake, 3 is very close to 2 in the keyboard
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]It took 3 millennia for somebody like Galileo to defy the teachings of such an illustrious master as Aristotle and demand that science be ridden with proof.[/quote]

That argument was going on in ancient Greece, between philosophers who thought that philosophy should be purely mental and those who thought it should be tested by experiment.

Also, Galileo was more like 2 millenia after Aristotle, not 3.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
@jadoing: just because YOU can`t understand the science, that doesn`t mean the science is wrong, it means you`re not educated enough to understand it.

For the record, I don`t think I could alone build an LHC, but I can understand exactly how it works, and given the resources, could very possibly build another one on the moon.

I am after all a physicist...
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]I think a lot of scientific proof is as sketchy as biblical proof. Are we not taking people`s word about what results were found where?[/quote]

No, not for actual science (as opposed to things falsely claimed to be science).

[quote]Have there not been faked experiments?[/quote]

Probably occasionally, and probably not at all recently. When science is done, actual science and not pseudoscience, fakery will be exposed.

Look at how real science is done:

i) A scientist observes something happening, forms hypotheses explaining how it happens, develops theories and conducts experiments *to try to prove their own theory wrong*.

ii) If they can`t, they write a detailed report and submit it for peer review, *where several different scientists independently try to prove it wrong*.

iii) If they can`t, it`s published an *every scientist of Earth is free to try to prove it wrong*.

It is always open season on every the
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Scientific proof requires the method be followed, otherwise you`re just fishing in the dark like the alchemists did.[/quote]

I`ll quote one example. Just one of very many that we still know about today. Many, many more were lost over time.

Eratosthenes observed that at noon on a particular day of the year in a particular place, a rod placed vertically in the ground cast a particular shadow.

Using logic, reason and experimentation, he deduced and confirmed that the shadow cast by an object was affected by the angle at which the light from the sun hit it.

He further deduced that it would be possible to calcuate the curvature of the surface of the Earth by comparing the shadows of two rods in different places at the same time, and thus to calculate the size of the Earth.

He conducted an experiment to test that hypothesis and then calculated the size of the Earth.

A scientist using the scientific method. Over 2000 years ago.
0
Reply
Male 427
@jadoig
Yes, you do have to take their word for it. However, it`s very unlikely that there`s a huge conspiracy to try and give fake results. It would have to be a huge conspiracy since every single person who works on that area and is able to replicate the experiment would have to agree to lie about it. If just one single person does not want to lie about it then he can contradict the fake result with a replica of the experiment.
So, for the conspiracy to work everyone in that area would be involved right? Now, if everyone who cares about it is involved why the hell are they giving fake results? The only people who are affected by the results of such experiment already know it`s fake because they`re part of the conspiracy.
And it would be found out that they cheated the moment that theory would be put to use.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]The modern scientific method has only been around since Galileo in 1638. So your "2000 years" statement is wrong, it`s been less than 400 years.[/quote]

Some ancient Greek philosophers followed the same scientific method as Galileo, so you could go back even further than 2000 years. It`s arguable that some Indian philosophers would also have qualified as scientists at about the same time, although much less is known about them. Some Arabic philosophers from close to 2000 years could also be reasonably classed as scientists and certainly so as far back as 1000 years.

The essence of the scientific method is finding a rational, natural explanation for things that are observed to happen, using logic and reason and testing those explanations against reality by experimentation. Some ancient philosophers did exactly that.
0
Reply
Male 434
jendrian: Can you? I certainly can`t. I have to take everyone`s word for it.

Sorry, that was vague. Are you able to build another one? On earth, let alone saturn? Would you be able to interpret the raw data? I`m pretty sure I couldn`t. They could tell me, "If this light blinks, it means x" and I could see the light and go Ahhh, yes, it blinks. So X!" But I`m still taking their word for it.
0
Reply
Male 434
evanbartlett:
you said:"But scientists at the end of the day are only looking for `truth.` "
I hate to focus on this triviality as it is not the core of your statement, but I need you to be aware that that is all I am looking for as well and, I think, what any intelligent theist should be doing.

Now, when I said "how do we know the equipment functions as it is said to?" I didn`t mean how do we know its not broken, but how do we know its not a flim-flam machine? a good con-man could con a world if done right. I know, unlikely, but impossible? I don`t think so.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
@jadoing: like I said, by reproducing it. If the results are valid, then you can build another LHC in saturn and find the same results
0
Reply
Male 434
Take the LHC for example. Now for the record, I`m not doubting it`s validity, I`m not saying that what I`m about to say is true, I`m using it as my example. They use this thing to accelerate particles to try and answer some fundamental open questions in physics; properties of quark-gluon plasma, the nature of dark matter, etc. (Nevermind that we have no proof that either of these things exist, or existed,) Once they find their results, How can the average lay-person validate or verify their findings?
Pretty sure we can`t. We have to take their word for it. As for peer review: Well it`s another scientist backing up the first one. So if two priests say they had the same experience under identical circumstances regarding God, that they were able to repeat the experiment, is that any different?
0
Reply
Male 434
Musuko, I understand about peer review. The same thing has been said about The Bible in cases where scripture has been written or dictated by someone who was there, who saw. There are others who were there and saw and were able to read what was written and say "this was not true" if that is the case.
It seems to me that in the end, we are still taking someones word for it.
I`m not disputing science, I`m not saying any specific "proven fact" is wrong. I`m saying there is an element of uncertainty that a lot of people overlook simply because it is science.
Let`s pretend I`m paranoid: How do I know "science" isn`t a group of guys who are willing to corroborate and back each other up no matter what?
0
Reply
Male 559
@jadoig: Interesting interpretation. You`re correct that from time to time a scientific experiment yields a conclusion which is later, upon peer review, deemed inaccurate. But scientists at the end of the day are only looking for `truth.` Reliance on equipment to help find that truth is high, and so the very things that you`re concerned about is the very thing that concern scientists and thus what they spend the most amount of time ensuring proper use and accuracy of concluding data. But these massive machines rely on scientific principles which have been known to be true for, in many cases, hundreds (and in some cases, thousands) of years. Skepticism is an admirable trait, and might make you a good scientist. But a healthy skepticism should be balanced with knowing that those who present scientific results do so only after struggling and ensuring that their own skepticism has been resolved.
0
Reply
Male 36,536
Hee hee hee
This made me laugh! It`s a cartoon that`s way to big to put up here. Very funny!
0
Reply
Male 2,516
hey madest, that makes 2 of us who believe in extraterrestrial life. It would be 3 but Carl Sagan died.

@CrakrJak (again): UFOs are not a "belief". ETs are a belief. Unidentified Flying Objects litter the sky every day and until there`s an explanation, they remain UFOs.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
another answer to Jadoig: Well one of the tenants of the scientific method is replicability and collective perception: if the experiment is able to be re-done and everybody (including objective observers like machines) finds the same results every time, then that`s enough to count as proof. While there`s extensive arguments about the human nature of this part of the scientific method is debated, it doesn`t mean the description will be wrong. Even if we lived in 21 dimensions and what we describe is only partially true because it`s only true in our 4 dimensions, that still makes it a better truth than religious dogma.
0
Reply
Male 36,536
[quote]@5cats - Challenge accepted! - What now?[/quote]

lolz! @LillianDulci! But now you will be killed since you insulted Islam. Sorry.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
@patchgrabber: Aristotle preached that the world was made of 5 basic things: wind, water, fire, earth, and a fifth entity called "quintessence" (literally meaning fifth-state). That all motions were based on stuff trying to go back to their basic "state" (earth goes back to earth, air floats, fire tries to make everything fire), and that all knowledge could be attained by thinking about it (or to paraphrase him: by philosophical argument).

It took 3 millennia for somebody like Galileo to defy the teachings of such an illustrious master as Aristotle and demand that science be ridden with proof.

So... yeah, CrakrJak is right, the scientific method as we know it was pretty much demanded (although perhaps not invented) by Galileo. Not meaning in any way that any actual science done before him doesn`t count, or that in any respect "god" didn`t have to show any proof for 2000 years, give or take.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@CrakrJak.

You say Madest can`t make fun of religion because he believes in UFOs...

...you believe in a magic sky friend. I`d say that puts you in no position to make fun of Madest.

Equally, how can you mock Madest for believing in something without proof, when that`s the entire basis of your religious belief?

The double-standard is staggering.

0
Reply
Male 2,850
@jadoig

"Are we not taking people`s word about what results were found where?"

Simple answer: no, we`re not.

Longer answer:peer review
0
Reply
Male 438
"I think a lot of scientific proof is as sketchy as biblical proof."

The difference is science is always trying to correct itself, it whittles away the things that are false until all that is left is the truth. Religion makes things up and then defends obvious falsehoods until it absolutely has no choice but to change. Religion has no motive to correct itself and in fact is motivated to continue errors because for religion to admit it is wrong is to bring its other teachings into question. Religion does not like questions.
0
Reply
Male 434
IM not so HO, I think a lot of scientific proof is as sketchy as biblical proof. Are we not taking people`s word about what results were found where? Have there not been faked experiments? Even those that can be duplicated using high tech eqiupment, how do we know the equipment functions as it is said to? Why are a group of people in lab coats more trustworthy than a group of people in religious garb (hold the pedo jokes)? They are all people and all subject to the same weaknesses and flaws. I can`t fault the scientific method, but I can fault the interpretation of the data gathered using said method.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
This is a few years old. Condell is now quite happy to make common cause with christian dominionists as long as they hate muslims as much as he does.
0
Reply
Male 190
wow finally someone has got it right. I wish I could express myself as well as he can.
0
Reply
Male 438
Pants on Fire:

Show 1 instance where the lemon test has been used to protect religion from gov`t abuse. You can`t because that is not how the courts use it. Courts use it to determine what interaction religion and gov`t can have and not violate the establishment clause.


Your dishonest and slimy way of distorting the truth is what drove me and plenty of others away from religion so keep it up, people will evetually see your lies.
0
Reply
Male 10,845
[quote]Scientific proof requires the method be followed, otherwise you`re just fishing in the dark like the alchemists did.[/quote]

The former has been going on since ancient times.

[quote]Early Christians found `proof` of God`s existence in many miracles and signs, but it wasn`t `scientific proof` because the scientific method wasn`t followed[/quote]

irrelevant
0
Reply
Male 438
Pants on Fire:

"I`m not changing any language in the constitution."

Yes you did change the language, and you quoted it as if it was word for word and then based your arguement on the false quote. You only admitted what you did after I called you on it. You are a liar. When a known liar makes a claim (such as the Supreme Court has ruled in such a way to back up your lie) and offers nothing in the form of proof or evidence the only conclusion that should be made is he (you) is lying again.
0
Reply
Male 10,845
[quote]Cajun & patchgrabber: I didn`t say that science or experimentation started with Galileo. Geesh, you guys take things out of context just to argue don`t you ?

"Modern science owes its present flourishing state to a new scientific method which was fashioned by Galileo Galilei" — Morris Kline, from wikipedia.[/quote]


Swing and a miss, all Galileo did was reinvent methods that had been around since ancient times and participated in the dismantling of entrenched and legally imposed superstition. This is outlined in Mr Kline`s own book.
0
Reply
Male 427
@command
If we grew some brains we`d see god? Funny you say that because several studies show that the higher IQ someone has the less likely he is to believe in god.
It`s also not a coincidence that the percentage of academics who believe in god is much lower than of the general population.

Oh, and atheists don`t have to be tolerant. Being tolerant when it comes to racist, sexist, xenophobic and homophobic behaviour would be rather stupid.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
madest: I could show you video of what some people believe is proof of God as well. Crying statues, unexplained images, stigmata, etc...

Video is not proof, and I`m surprised you`re willing to lower your standards, that you demand out of religion, to believe that it is.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
What`s funny is the people who believe in religion think they`re better than the people who believe in UFO`s. I have video proof. You don`t.
0
Reply
Male 4
@Canoas
there is probably a lot of truth to that. most of the effect can be accounted for by will power. people with high levels of self control have been shown to be happier, healthier, more social, more successful etc... and religious people have been shown to have higher levels of self control. this is most likely because of the level of self control required to follow the rules and routines as well as meditation and prayer associated with religion and that combined with social pressure from the other church members is a strong motivator to actually follow them. i.e. religious people just have more practice at exercising self control. perhaps joining a gym can achieve the same results? for me it`s martial arts and guided meditation.

the effect is probably a lot less for non church going religious people so i doubt they get any benefit from being religious in this respect. maybe there are other benefits such as acceptance of death but i dont know of any reasearch on this
0
Reply
Male 20
Wow! I`m amazed at the intolerance of the those who claim to be tolerant. What hypocrites.

Perhaps if you folks grew some brains, you`d see God. Alas, you can`t force a jackass to drink water.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
madest: You believe in UFOs, grow up.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Otto: I`m not changing any language in the constitution, I said I was clarifying what the terms meant according to rulings already decided upon by the supreme court and what those justices wrote in their opinions of those rulings.

Also, I didn`t define the lemon test, the supreme court did, all I did was share with you their definition.

Cajun & patchgrabber: I didn`t say that science or experimentation started with Galileo. Geesh, you guys take things out of context just to argue don`t you ?

"Modern science owes its present flourishing state to a new scientific method which was fashioned by Galileo Galilei" — Morris Kline, from wikipedia.

Scientific proof requires the method be followed, otherwise you`re just fishing in the dark like the alchemists did.

Early Christians found `proof` of God`s existence in many miracles and signs, but it wasn`t `scientific proof` because the scientific method wasn`t followed
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Children believe in Santa Claus but they grow up.
0
Reply
Male 427
@888eddy
That is indeed true, but you also have to look at why that is true. If you compare Christians who don`t go to church to atheists then the results will not be that different. Humans have basic needs and one of the most important ones is social interactions. Religious people go to church every sunday with the friends they made there and that`s why they are happier, more social and more satisfied. Get a hobby, join club or practise a sport every sunday and you will become happier. The more close friends you have and the more time you spend with them the happier you are.

Also, they are healthier due to the placebo effect. The placebo effect can be very strong depending on how it`s administered. For example, a blue branded pill works better than a non-brand white one even though both of them have no medicinal value. If a blue/white capsule > white capsule > blue pill > white pill in terms of placebo effect strength , where in the chain would you place God?
0
Reply
Male 427
@lawndartsftw
Atheism is the rejection of theism, therefore all it is about is that there are no Gods. We did not create a god of our own to worship like you have. The argument is not "my god is better than yours" like it would have been in a Christianity vs Islam debate, it`s simply "there is no god" and therefore what we`ll do is provide evidence that prove you wrong. Some atheists will publicly promote atheism, like christians openly promote christianity, others simply don`t care.

And how can atheism be an inferiority complex? An inferiority complex is a feeling that you are inferior to others which can cause:
Beliefs or magical thinking that influences behavior,
Unusual perceptual experiences, including bodily illusions,
Odd thinking and speech,
Discouragement from accomplishing achievements,
etc.

That fits Christianity really well doesn`t it?
0
Reply
Male 4
I`m an atheist but I find it hard to believe that the sort of people that use religion as an excuse for violence would not be violent if they weren`t religious.

sure religion has its share of ignorance but the irony is that atheists are pretty ignorant to think that religion is all bad. studies have shown that religious people are happier, healthier, they live longer, they are more social, more successful, more satisfied with their lives, and basically trump atheists by every measure.

religion has been a major part of civilisation for thousands of years and I think its naive to think none of it is useful at all. I propose research be done to find out which bits of religion are actually good and which bits bad and create something new based on science and reason.

unfortunately most people are too stubborn to even consider a view that contradicts their own so nobody is going to even consider whether I might be right. love to hear why I might be wrong tho so go
0
Reply
Male 5,811
CrakrJak: Aristotle is the one who began the scientific method, by emphasizing the necessity of empirical measurement, which he applied to everything from medicine to poetry. There`s also ample evidence of science at work in an Egyptian medical book from 1600 BCE, so science has been around since before your precious christianity, even though it hadn`t garnered the same amount of accepted legitimacy as religion did at the time.
0
Reply
Male 2,592
Hell yeah throw some chairs!!
0
Reply
Male 438
"So your "2000 years" statement is wrong, it`s been less than 400 years."

Pants on Fire:

What does 1600 years matter in your world, you can just change `years` to `seconds` and then it`s only a difference of 26 minutes and change.
0
Reply
Male 10,845
Let`s see there`s
Archimedes (pneumatics and bouyancy)
Aristarchos of Samos (astronomy)
Appolonius
0
Reply
Male 10,845
[quote]The modern scientific method has only been around since Galileo in 1638. So your "2000 years" statement is wrong, it`s been less than 400 years.[/quote]

No the scientific method wasn`t started by Galileo, if that were true than the ancient Romans would`ve been conquering the world with sticks, stones, and loincloths. Madest is correct.
0
Reply
Male 438
Pants on Fire:

YOU don`t get to define Lemon Test...
0
Reply
Male 1,810
For me, the biggest turn-off about atheism is that all they seemingly talk about are theists/Christians, and how wrong they are. Atheism is one big inferiority complex, imo.

Also, these threads are started just for trolling, mainly to troll Crackrjack
0
Reply
Male 438
Pants on Fire (Crakr):

You don`t get to change the language of the Constitution to fit WHAT YOU THINK IT SHOULD MEAN. I know Christians have a long history changing words and meaning to fit their particular needs when it comes to the Bible, but you don`t get to do that with the document that ALL of our laws are based on and gives US OUR FREEDOM. The words were chosen very specifically. "Establishment" refers to the gov`t "establishing a state religion" not building churches or zumba clasess, what BS. I have no respect for you or your opinion, you knew exactly what you were doing.

You are a blatent liar, "to put it mildly" and I will only refer to you going forward as `Pants on Fire`.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
madest: The modern scientific method has only been around since Galileo in 1638. So your "2000 years" statement is wrong, it`s been less than 400 years.

I also doubt that you`d believe in God even if he came down in person and turned your chili into tomato soup and parted it in half.

0
Reply
Male 7,378
Right on dude. You`d think 2000 years would be enough time to come up with at least one scientifically proven fact of Gods existence but no, there is no proof. He still has blind followers though so people love their fairy tales.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
I also defined the "Lemon Test" quite clearly and it`s about the government not getting `entangled` for or against religion, just as it says below.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Otto: Churches are protected more than other `organizations` because of the 1st amendment.

I didn`t twist the 1st amendment either, it`s mildly confusing to say "respecting an establishment of" and "free exercise thereof" in this day and age.

17th century politicians used a slightly different syntax of English than we do.

"respecting an establishment of" sounds like the government can`t stop a church from being built and that`s not what it means.

"free exercise thereof" sounds like the government can`t stop a church from offering `Zoomba` classes to keep their parishioners fit. Again, that`s not what it means.

That`s not being `dishonest` that`s just clarifying 17th century meaning with 21st century language, and the supreme court has backed up that interpretation as well. So quit being
trenchant and pettifogging.
0
Reply
Male 289
..comparing it with animal cruelty?!..heh,you must be new to this planet,it seems..How about "killed by stoning" for various "blasphemies" occurred?..huh? how about "holy" wars?! ..huh?! how about "you`re religion isn`t the "REAL" one,so you must die"?!..huh?! should i continue?!,neah
0
Reply
Male 2,516
@discobiscuit: man, every atheist in the world would take that offer right then and there, nothing to be added. But it`s never that simple.

For you, yes, for the loudmouths that claim to follow the same creed as you I`m afraid you`ll never ever hear that offer.
0
Reply
Male 542
Comparing religiosity to animal cruelty? Flawless logic. Here`s a proposition: I won`t make any mention of my belief system if you`re courteous enough to return the favor, alright?
0
Reply
Male 434
Religion does suck. But it`s the people that made it so:
Religion would have been amazing, if it weren`t for all the damn people. Religion didn`t kill people, people used religion to kill other people. Religion provided an excuse. Not every bad thing can be blamed on religion, or has religion at it`s heart.

This guy talks like religion is the cause of every evil known to man.

Also, God is awesome.

As for the taxes...Churches shouldn`t be taxed if it can be shown they do not make a profit.
0
Reply
Male 4,431
And the taxes have nothing to do with business. They have to do with income. And tithing, like it or not, is income. Plain and simple. What, are we supposed to only tax non-religious people and entities on their income?
0
Reply
Male 4,431
CrakrJak, the only laws I was speaking of are those based in religious dogma, over ALL persons, even those who aren`t adherents. As for a law telling Christians, or any religious adherents, what they can or can`t do in their own churches or on their own pulpits, or in their own homes, regarding religion, please give an example. Unless, of course, you`re talking about advocating certain political stances, who to vote for, etc. Because, even then, it`s totally and 100% allowed. It just means that your TAX FREE status is in jeopardy. But, a religious group can certainly SAY anything they want from the pulpit (just not tax free). And, I support them 100%. I support freedom of religion 100%. I don`t support religious dogma in MY life. I don`t inject my atheism into the lives of the religious, I don`t pass laws supporting my atheism (please give an example if you think any atheists do), so, I don`t care for it when adherents pass laws forcing their religion on me. Seems fair.
0
Reply
Male 438
Crakr:

"Banning political speech does not pass the "Lemon test"."

The lemon test is used to determine when religion and gov`t can interact and NOT violate the "Establishment Clause" as in "Congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, it is not used to determine when gov`t can restrict the speech of religion, but I think you know this don`t you.

Just more dishonesty right Crakr?
0
Reply
Male 14,775
I subscribe to his channel, but never thought to submit his content.

Religious people just need to man up and throw off the charade of faith. You can`t seriously believe all that crap.
0
Reply
Male 554
"morals that would shame a rattlesnake"...

AHHAHA, awesome !
0
Reply
Male 438
Crakr Now I have proof of your dishonesty.

You posted a quote from the 1st amendment as:

"Congress shall make no law establishing religion or abridging the free expression thereof...".

that is NOT what the 1st Amendment says, it says is

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"

You intentionally rearranged it in an effort to give churches the appearence of having more protection than they do. When I have discussions with you I make every effort to discuss the topic and attack ideas, not you personally but I call BS, this was not a mistake.

I will make an exception here

You are a dishonest douche.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
so... what is it that churches produce again?
0
Reply
Male 438
"Sorry, that`s just blatantly unconstitutional."

No it`s not, there are limitations to free speech and organizations are not given same level of rights as individuals are.

An organization that qualifies as “tax-exempt” under Section 501(c)(3) is one that devotes its resources to educational, religious, scientific or other charitable activities, and that complies with a number of other rules, including the prohibition on political activity. It is not just churches that fall under this provision.

The fact you ignored my question to you about the obvious problems of allowing churches to be used as political tools tells me that is exactly what you want.
0
Reply
Male 327
This was AWESOME. "Crowbar their tiny minds out of the stone age."
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Otto:[quote]churches however are not to be used as political machines.[/quote]

But unions, lobbyists, and community organizations can ? None of those 3 types of organizations have the 1st amendment protection that Religion does, yet they get a pass ?

Sorry, that`s just blatantly unconstitutional.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Angilion: To make `profits` you have to be selling something. Churches ask for tithes and donations, and those are tax deductible under the law.

Churches aren`t comparable to other groups because they have specific 1st amendment protection. "Congress shall make no law establishing religion or abridging the free expression thereof...". Even newspapers can`t be legally taxed and they are full of editorials with political speech,

Laws do not have to be shorn of morality and history to be declared constitutional.

Banning political speech does not pass the "Lemon test".

1. The government`s action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2. The government`s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government`s action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
If any of these 3 prongs are violated, the government`s action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause
0
Reply
Male 438
"Christians should have just as much right to speak out and lobby politically as any other group without being threatened with taxation if they do."

Crakr:

Christians can speak out all they want, churches however are not to be used as political machines.

Do you really think it would be good for the country if the Catholic church used its financial power and its religious influence to affect our elections, do you want the Pope to come with a list of `approved` candidates? The potential for abuse would be huge. Money would be filtered through churches for their support. Parisheners that did not agree with their religious authorities would feel alienated. 2 words, unintended consequences.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Churches aren`t a business and have 1st amendment protection under the constitution.[/quote]

They make profits. That makes them businesses. Businesses that are not taxed. You claim you want them treated like other similar groups, which would be businesses lobbying for the state to use the force of law to give them more money and power. You also claim that it was unfair to talk about possibly taxing churches. That only makes sense if you think that other money-seeking, power-seeking businesses lobbying the government for their own interests are not taxed.

Of course, the explanation is that you don`t want churches to be treated like comparable groups doing comparable things and you know that churches already have preferential treatment. You`re just playing the victim card because it`s politically useful.

Also, some other businesses do charitable work. It`s good publicity.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
what do they produce then? knowledge? cakes?
0
Reply
Male 17,512
jendrian: You must be blind as a bat to say that "Churches....don`t produce anything".
0
Reply
Male 2,516
@CrakrJak: Churches also rake in millions of dollars and don`t produce anything
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Angilion: Churches aren`t a business and have 1st amendment protection under the constitution. Churches also perform a lot of charity and social work that the government wants to take sole control over.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Christians should have just as much right to speak out and lobby politically as any other group without being threatened with taxation if they do.[/quote]

So other businesses in the USA aren`t taxed at all unless they lobby politically to get the government to pass laws to make their business richer and more powerful?

I find that hard to believe.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
I`ve watched the video and I`ll come right out and say I agree with it. Religion certainly doesn`t deserve the free pass, mandatory respect and automatic power it`s given. Why should I be more respectful of religion than, for example, an utter obsession with Twilight to the extent that the person thinks it`s a true story? That`s nowhere near as bad as religion, because it`s harmless and powerless.

[quote]Ooo! He gets to Islam at about 4 minutes, bravo! [/quote]

He got to Islam right from the start. He was talking about religion, not just Christianity. He was talking specifically about "the god of the sands", which is obviously the god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
SmagBoy: No Christian group are advocating anyone to worship the way they do, go to church, tithe or anything else like that.

There are laws that religious people would like to get passed, but none of them have to do with `establishing a state religion`.

If the state can tell us where not to smoke, what can`t be said in the pulpit, and what insurance has to be obligatorily covered. Then we, as Christians, have the right to lobby for laws that we believe are morally correct as well.

What`s the difference between what atheists want to lobby for and religion wants to lobby for ? The government isn`t telling the atheists to STFU or else, now are they ?

Christians should have just as much right to speak out and lobby politically as any other group without being threatened with taxation if they do.
0
Reply
Male 25,416
Well that was someone saying what we were all thinking
0
Reply
Female 2,674
@5cats - Challenge accepted!



What now?
0
Reply
Male 2,516
to be honest the only "militant" vegan I`ve ever met was a guy handing out pamphlets. And if you count the many talks Dr. Dawkins does as "militant", then sure... but he got paid to give that talk.

Religious zealots don`t get paid, nor do they pray in their homes, they go out and become public nuisances by yelling to the top of their lungs or even beating people outside of abortion clinics. They block streets and they lobby in the government to get their twisted point across.

"Militant" atheists are not arguing against any of you who practice at home and leave everybody alone, they`re trying to get all of those idiots who make your religious belief look stupid to stfu. I`m sure we can all agree there needs to be someone against that.
0
Reply
Male 36,536
0:45 Draw a picture of Muhammed and THEN castigate the Cristians as "intolerant". Dare ya!
Ooo! He gets to Islam at about 4 minutes, bravo!

Actually I agree with him a lot... except about the gays.

Hey! Leave rattlesnakes out of this! They have higher morals than religious persons, at least they warn you...
0
Reply
Male 2,143
Freakin` Awesome.
0
Reply
Male 10
Bravo
0
Reply
Male 4,431
"Aggressive atheists are no better than the WBC idiots or militant vegans." CrakrJak, I agree, but, I would add that aggressive atheists are no better than those who would try to insert religion into politics, either. Point being, we`re free here in the US to practice religion any way we see fit. So, why, given that choice, do some feel the need to write their beliefs into law so that others, those who don`t believe, must follow them? That`s wrong. And just as wrong, I`d say, as aggressive atheism. And I *believe* that was the video guy`s point. I`m all for the free practice of religion, I just don`t believe it should have any influence over me. I hope that make sense, and that it was said without being aggressive? :-)
0
Reply
Male 7,775
Bleating and h-whining. Bet he likes cool h-whip.
0
Reply
Male 234
AMEN!


oops
0
Reply
Male 1,305
Troll bait! Come and get it! *chomp* *chomp* *chomp*
0
Reply
Male 3,445
jamie76:

You`re making a lot of assumptions in that post, mostly to get a rise out of me, which will not work. All I`m saying to everyone is that the WBC are a collective hate organization. Would you equate all Christians with the WBC? Would you equate all atheists with Stalin? Are all Muslims terrorists?
0
Reply
Female 737
I thoroughly enjoyed this.
0
Reply
Male 2,345
FoolsPrussia

I see a smaller and smaller difference each day between the two.

thank god vegans are typical weak asses otherwise they would be kicking asses.

oh and dont bother with the whole, vegans are strong bs. I am in the gym daily and can tell you right now, NO, they are not. they are cardio lovers because they lack the muscle to be anything more.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
I`d just like to say how disturbing it is that some of you equate the WBC with vegans.
0
Reply
Male 2,345
Atheist, you are never aware of who your true enemy is because you do not understand who your enemy is not.

the majority of believers (note the distinction between that term and religious person) also do not support religious politics or over religious people.

IT IS POSSIBLE Atheist, for a person to be spiritual, a believer and not believe that it has any place in politics.

yet, you are no different than the religious people you rail against. you are intolerant, blind and make overly generalized dogmatic statements that you regard as truth.

you are just as dangerous and just as bad because like religious people, you want to fore your view with aggression and believe, like Christians do, that you are under attack when in fact you are not.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
I`d just like to say how disturbing it is that some of you equate the WBC with vegans.
0
Reply
Female 1,008
we had a few weeks of no religion/atheism stuff, and now it`s coming in droves.
0
Reply
Male 10,845
Right the fu<k on sir!
0
Reply
Male 17
You`re all nut jobs!!
0
Reply
Male 2,516
yeah I guess militant atheists with their: "freedom for all" and "right to practice your delusion at home without proselytizing" and "gay rights" and what not are just as bad as WBC or Vegans
0
Reply
Male 768
Can`t we go 1 friggin day here without some anti-religious post. They are getting pretty boring.
0
Reply
Male 506
Damnit, you posted something that made me agree with a CrakrJak comment!
0
Reply
Male 5
He hit the nail on the head and drove it way below the surface.
0
Reply
Male 10,845
[quote] Aggressive atheists are no better than the WBC idiots or militant vegans.[/quote]

Well they`re neither militant nor bigoted so this assertion is tenuous.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Aggressive atheists are no better than the WBC idiots or militant vegans.
0
Reply
Female 7,838
Creases me up,
0
Reply
Male 260
The use of "Amen" in this comment section amuses me.
0
Reply
Male 76
That made me very happy.
0
Reply
Male 508
Fighting fanatics with fanaticism.

Pure win.
0
Reply
Male 4,746
This guy is my hero.
0
Reply
Male 4,594
I like him.
0
Reply
Male 365
Amen to that.
0
Reply
Male 3,894
Well, it`s an improvement over that chick`s video.
0
Reply
Male 1,008
Amen
0
Reply
Female 245
Angry old man has points.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
Hasn`t there been enough of this for one day?
0
Reply
Male 14,330
You lost me at no boobs.
0
Reply
Male 43
Link: Aggressive Atheism [Rate Link] - Pat Condell explains why religions don`t deserve your respect. No distracting music or boobs.
0
Reply