Dawkins sticks it to the Pope

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Bicnarok

Rascaduanok
It says not available. Boo Hiss!

King Castle
the pope must have prayed it away.. take that dawkins!!

seriously it says it isnt available.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by King Castle
the pope must have prayed it away.. take that dawkins!!

seriously it says it isnt available.

eek! The government is hiding the truth!. eek!

King Castle
my 1st thought was it was the vatican.. but i can see the vatican tellin our government and our government listenin

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by King Castle
my 1st thought was it was the vatican.. but i can see the vatican tellin our government and our government listenin

It was really the Vatican telling the UN, and then the UN telling the US government. wink

King Castle
then our government orders youtube to take it down due to national security and violating civil/constitutional rights.

ADarksideJedi
Originally posted by King Castle
the pope must have prayed it away.. take that dawkins!!

seriously it says it isnt available.

I thought people have better things to do then go around mocking the Pope it is too shameful. smile

King Castle
not when you are rich,, you have less important things to do like mock the pope..

plus, last i heard the pope was once a hitler supporter as a youth... whistle

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by King Castle
not when you are rich,, you have less important things to do like mock the pope..

plus, last i heard the pope was once a hitler supporter as a youth... whistle
And I heard you wanted to kill a third of the worlds population. stick out tongue

King Castle
you heard right but, that is neither here nor there.

also, i never supported hitler nor his racist views.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by King Castle
you heard right but, that is neither here nor there.

also, i never supported hitler nor his racist views.

I just find it funny that you would accuse the pope of supporting Hitler. You and Hitler would agree on many things. Just like you, he was wanting to improve the human condition. The only difference is that he had a clear idea of who should live and who should die. It seems like to me that you would praise the pope for having supported Hitler. stick out tongue

King Castle
my views are tempered by my philosophical MA zen upbringing and my respect of the constitution. my beliefs would never allow me to support hitler nor any of his views even if deep down i wanted to....

plus, i dont agree that being Nordic is the perfect race nor do i think any one race is the ideal human..

my belief is to combine the best of various racist to create the perfect human... great physical attributes, intelligent mind, strong immune system no genetic disposition to genetic flaws/disease..

cosmetic outward appearance would be a bonus but of no real importance... i personally prefer: a cinnamon color tan, green or blue eyes.. light brown hair with high lights, high cheek bones, 5'9 to 6'3.

i know who i would want to eliminate and where to start but, never would i act upon it.. but, if war were to occur for other reasons i would see it as a good thing seeing as it would be one step closer to my goals..

http://gamevideos.1up.com/video/id/23559


honestly i would be non violate in my approach mostly setting up laws of who can procreate and why.... ppl with severe genetic flaws where children have a high chance of being born severely handicap would not be allowed to have children. if they did i would sterilize them at birth....

i would idolize and reward ppl who had the traits i admired and wanted from giving them scholarships in sports/schools or private government programs which would be military oriented with high standards...

if ppl didnt want to live in my society they can leave...

it would be beautiful world a Utopia where the strong would survive as nature intended... no more would the weak and cowardly live by and leech off those meant to survive.

Shakyamunison
King Castle, you could have just said RANT! wink

King Castle
i am tryin to motivate and start my own militia and share my dream with the world.

FplQ8a7c4ZM

excuse me i mussed up my hair from by podium speech and fist shaking..jr_shakefist

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by King Castle
i am tryin to motivate and start my own militia and share my dream with the world...
excuse me i mussed up my hair from by podium speech and fist shaking..jr_shakefist

laughing out loud

Bicnarok

King Castle
i think he has a point the sad thing is he doesnt get enough air time/coverage to spread it to the ppl...

honestly the vatican is an old institution that has no place in the modern world let alone in politics or government.

i cant wait for it to finally collapse, wonder when that will happen?

maybe in another 50 yrs they''ll stop being a religious institution and show the world what it really was a world bank whose funds came from the poor and hopeful

Robtard
Originally posted by King Castle


i cant wait for it to finally collapse, wonder when that will happen?


Not anytime soon, they've got hoards of wealth, power and influence.

King Castle
it be funny of certain 1st world governments had made giant strides in various sciences and technology where the vatican's beliefs became backwards almost immediately.

ppl being taught about history by temporal windows... lo and behold no bejesus in the BC era or after no matter how hard we look for it..

wealth becomes less important and their influence no longer enough to refute world facts...

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by King Castle
it be funny of certain 1st world governments had made giant strides in various sciences and technology where the vatican's beliefs became backwards almost immediately.

ppl being taught about history by temporal windows... lo and behold no bejesus in the BC era or after no matter how hard we look for it..

wealth becomes less important and their influence no longer enough to refute world facts...

No fact can stand against belief.

King Castle
is that a fact?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by King Castle
is that a fact?

It depends on what you believe. cool

King Castle
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It depends on what you believe. cool Originally posted by King Castle


i dont believe in anything strongly enough to say believe..

i like and hope for certain things and have an idea of what i would like.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by King Castle


You totally missed my point. We went to the moon in the late 60's. That is a fact, but there are people who believe that we did not go to the moon. For these people fact does not sway belief. The same is true about religion. Fact does not always sway people to abandon belief. Therefore, it is impossible to be rid of religion.

King Castle
that's b/c not all the facts have bn presented to ppl in a way that they can understand..


if ancient pp were to walk up to a 7 eleven and the door opened they would think it was done by god. i wouldnt say it wasnt god and leave it at that, i would have to explain the science i would need to teach them how it operates and how it was done....

till they are capable of grasping the basic science and mechanics of it..

instance, some ppl dont think we went to the moon but we know we have since there is a mirror placed on the moon to measure its distance with lasers.. hence, we have evidence that can be used to show our views as fact.

Robtard
Originally posted by King Castle
that's b/c not all the facts have bn presented to ppl in a way that they can understand..


What Shaky is saying is unfortunately true; especially when it comes to religion. People will believe what they want/need to believe, no matter how clearly and logically you can show them something to the contrary.

EG, A large number of people believe that the Earth is only around 6k years old, despite the vast evidence of erosion, orogeny, carbon dating etc. showing that it would be outright impossible for the Earth to only be 6k years old. Faith > Fact, to some

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by King Castle
that's b/c not all the facts have bn presented to ppl in a way that they can understand..


if ancient pp were to walk up to a 7 eleven and the door opened they would think it was done by god. i wouldnt say it wasnt god and leave it at that, i would have to explain the science i would need to teach them how it operates and how it was done....

till they are capable of grasping the basic science and mechanics of it..

instance, some ppl dont think we went to the moon but we know we have since there is a mirror placed on the moon to measure its distance with lasers.. hence, we have evidence that can be used to show our views as fact.

You are asking someone to give up something of value for nothing.

King Castle
Originally posted by Robtard
What Shaky is saying is unfortunately true; especially when it comes to religion. People will believe what they want/need to believe, no matter how clearly and logically you can show them something to the contrary.

EG, A large number of people believe that the Earth is only around 6k years old, despite the vast evidence of erosion, orogeny, carbon dating etc. showing that it would be outright impossible for the Earth to only be 6k years old. Faith > Fact, to some only b/c he hasnt taken science courses to explain how each method is a viable and accurate indicators...

again ppl need to be told more then just "no it isnt" they need to be shown and walked through it. some ppl just dont have the patients to teach them from an elementary lvl and up and others dont have the patients nor desire to listen or learn.

hence, ppl like myself and various others we have the intellectual capacity to be doctors, lawyers, physicist but we have other interest hence, we dont care and lack the education required for us to make informed thoughts/opinions....

Shakyamunison
Robtard, you try talking sense into King Castle. I think his belief is too strong for facts to have any sway. big grin

King Castle
i'm just keepin it goin... not like i am making some asinine Zen double talk or anythin..

i know some ppl shut their ears, mouth and eyes to certain things..

Robtard
Originally posted by King Castle
only b/c he hasnt taken science courses to explain how each method is a viable and accurate indicators...

again ppl need to be told more then just "no it isnt" they need to be shown and walked through it. some ppl just dont have the patients to teach them from an elementary lvl and up and others dont have the patients nor desire to listen or learn.

hence, ppl like myself and various others we have the intellectual capacity to be doctors, lawyers, physicist but we have other interest hence, we dont care and lack the education required for us to make informed thoughts/opinions....

I'm sure you could find cases were people where swayed, but I've personally have spoken with people who are both intelligent and logical, yet will not sway in religious beliefs, no matter how factual evidence is presented. They even read an educated themselves on the material, yet their faith supersedes anything else.

King Castle
well if it is believing in a Gawd who is behind creation that's cool, imo.. cant refute it scientifically.

but, some one arguing that the earth is flat and not round is another thing.


7F5kYWceTsI

severely lack of education and woefully ignorant..

-Pr-
Originally posted by Robtard
I'm sure you could find cases were people where swayed, but I've personally have spoken with people who are both intelligent and logical, yet will not sway in religious beliefs, no matter how factual evidence is presented. They even read an educated themselves on the material, yet their faith supersedes anything else.

What kind of evidence are you talking about?

Or do you mean dinosaur bones/evolution etc?

Robtard
Originally posted by -Pr-
What kind of evidence are you talking about?

Or do you mean dinosaur bones/evolution etc?

Established measures, like the examples I used for dating the Earth, granted, could it be off some considering the amount of time we're dealing with? Sure, but I think we can safely say that the Earth isn't just several thousand years old.

Some people despite the evidence refuse to accept anything other than the 6k year old claim which is based on loose biblical calculations, due to faith.

-Pr-
Originally posted by Robtard
Established measures, like the examples I used for dating the Earth, granted, could it be off some considering the amount of time we're dealing with? Sure, but I think we can safely say that the Earth isn't just several thousand years old.

Some people despite the evidence refuse to accept anything other than the 6k year old claim which is based on loose biblical calculations, due to faith.

Oh... Well that's just silly...

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Robtard
What Shaky is saying is unfortunately true; especially when it comes to religion. People will believe what they want/need to believe, no matter how clearly and logically you can show them something to the contrary.

EG, A large number of people believe that the Earth is only around 6k years old, despite the vast evidence of erosion, orogeny, carbon dating etc. showing that it would be outright impossible for the Earth to only be 6k years old. Faith > Fact, to some

Carbon dating works in determining things that are old up to 50 000. Anything over that, it fails.
But I suppose it, at least, proves Earth is not 7 000 years old or 6 000 or whatever Abrahamists believe.

inimalist
interesting speech... a little strange that he goes to pains to point out that atheism has nothing to do with the holocaust, but also emphasizes how much of a Catholic Hitler was.

It doesn't matter what religion Hitler was... lol

Digi
Castle's earlier nonsense about a Utopia is rather laughable, and also scary. Your premise is easily defeated: First and most importantly, "desirable" traits are arbitrary and subjective. You wouldn't be selecting the best traits, you'd be selecting what only you believe to be the best traits. It wouldn't be an improvement, it would just be a change. Second, diseases mutate. Selecting for stronger immune systems would just speed up bacterial and viral natural selection, making them stronger. The likeliest outcome of such an attempt would be to inadvertently create a super-virus that decimates the world's population. Third, working toward an appearance standardization would likely result in more of the mutations you're trying to avoid. The more removed people are genetically, the less likely they are to share recessive mutations. You'd compound the problem, and create a metaphoric cultural incest. Fourth, achievement is not always genetic. You might have some success in athletics, but mixed-to-no success in acedamia or general "life success" (also arbitrarily judged, btw).

You also talk about making it "as nature intended." Nature's a f*cking b*tch. We're MUCH better off now than we were when natural selection meant more to the human race. If you want to strip us of civilization and return to a barbaric pursuit of genetic improvement, well, that's pretty messed up.

Finally, your way of running such a utopia would strip people of freedom. You would be dictating how people lived, an offense justified by no end. Your ideals would fail, you'd be killed, and the world would be better for it. F*** that utopia. Sounds more like hell to me. The funny part is how delusional you are, and the scary part is that you aren't the only person whose idea of a perfect world is so f****d up.

King Castle
it was just a want not something i would ever back or do, stop ruining and stomping on my dreams they are not hurting anyone..

why cant you ever let me have anything around here?

http://www.stanford.edu/group/ccr/blog/man.jpg

also ppl can still mate with anyone in the world i just expect that they are physically fit and mentally capable an able to learn.. basically no weak, soft, fat, crazy or genetically flawed ppl... aka mental retardation, extreme cases of autism, hearts being born outside their bodies at birth, missing appendages.. you know the undesirable and meant to die by nature but live only due to modern meddling.

also no slimy politicians of any kind their traits should be purged from the gene pool entirely.

VyMht6Xmh7c

Digi
"Why can't you leave me alone?" doesn't exonerate your opinions. It's just an excuse to maintain your ignorance and harmful reasoning even in the face of a contrary argument.

Bardock42
Originally posted by inimalist
interesting speech... a little strange that he goes to pains to point out that atheism has nothing to do with the holocaust, but also emphasizes how much of a Catholic Hitler was.

It doesn't matter what religion Hitler was... lol

Well, Hitler is the go to argument for why atheism is bad. Then Stalin.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Digi
"Why can't you leave me alone?" doesn't exonerate your opinions. It's just an excuse to maintain your ignorance and harmful reasoning even in the face of a contrary argument.

Irony!

Not about you, he was just talking about how stupid people like that are.

King Castle
Originally posted by Digi
"Why can't you leave me alone?" doesn't exonerate your opinions. It's just an excuse to maintain your ignorance and harmful reasoning even in the face of a contrary argument. fine, i concede my dream of a perfectly fit, intelligent, healthy, warrior human race...


strange as in it was just a dream and not an argument.

can i keep the one wear i am a warrior angel in the after life living out my RPG game fantasies? no expression

Bicnarok

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, Hitler is the go to argument for why atheism is bad. Then Stalin.

What about Mao or Pol Pot? Pol Pot banned all religion, why isn't he used in an anti-atheist argument?

Noone cares about Asianz!

FistOfThe North
yea dawkin's is the man.

a very intelligent and brave man.

religion and faith are for ignorant and the hypnotized whom coutenance falsehoods in order to make excuses and explain "the explainable" which for the most part can now be explained with evidence and proof.

the world would be a better place without religion and the god notion.

AthenasTrgrFngr
do you understand half of the words you used in that post? serious question.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by AthenasTrgrFngr
do you understand half of the words you used in that post? serious question.

Pfft, you're asking him to explain the explainable.

dadudemon

Bicnarok
Originally posted by AthenasTrgrFngr
do you understand half of the words you used in that post? serious question.

Well I havent got a clue what "Ignaminious expedient" at 0:38 means to be honest, the rest was ok.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, Hitler is the go to argument for why atheism is bad. Then Stalin.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u55/WatchOut_02/Dawkins.jpg

Bardock42
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
What about Mao or Pol Pot? Pol Pot banned all religion, why isn't he used in an anti-atheist argument?

Noone cares about Asianz!

Indeed.

Though Pol Pot really isn't in the same league as the other three.

jaden101
Originally posted by King Castle
only b/c he hasnt taken science courses to explain how each method is a viable and accurate indicators...

again ppl need to be told more then just "no it isnt" they need to be shown and walked through it. some ppl just dont have the patients to teach them from an elementary lvl and up and others dont have the patients nor desire to listen or learn.

hence, ppl like myself and various others we have the intellectual capacity to be doctors, lawyers, physicist but we have other interest hence, we dont care and lack the education required for us to make informed thoughts/opinions....

I certainly wouldn't want someone without the intellectual capacity to know the difference between "patients" and "patience" as my doctor.

Digi
Originally posted by King Castle
fine, i concede my dream of a perfectly fit, intelligent, healthy, warrior human race...


strange as in it was just a dream and not an argument.

can i keep the one wear i am a warrior angel in the after life living out my RPG game fantasies? no expression

The way you frame your question makes me look like the villain. You're the one who espoused stripping people of basic freedoms, though I enjoyed the delightfully misleading spin you tried to put on it (Fit! Intelligent! Healthy! Who wouldn't want such things!). If anyone missed the discussion, go back and check Castle's first post on this subject...it's f--ing creepy.

Also, an RPG whatever-the-hell is clearly just a fantasy, and has nothing to do with religious or cultural convictions. If we're just talking about daydreams and vague wishes, then why are you discussing them here in the first place? It's a waste of everyone's time. I'd love to have superpowers, but I don't talk about that in a religion forum like it's a serious possibility.

The "utopia" however was not a fanciful daydream. You flat-out said you'd impose those restrictions on people if you were in charge. That I will not allow you to "keep" (meaning, I will not leave it unchallenged). Random crap like being an angel I couldn't care less about. It wouldn't affect me, the world, other people, etc.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Noone cares about Asianz!

Well, they don't have souls, so why would we?

313

jaden101
Originally posted by Digi



Well, they don't have souls, so why would we?

313

Gingers do have souls....

Oh wait...You meant Asianz

Ok...they don't.

Some of them have hot chicks though.

Digi
Originally posted by jaden101
Gingers do have souls....

Oh wait...You meant Asianz

Ok...they don't.

Some of them have hot chicks though.

Which is why it's ok to do them in the butt.

yes



fdog

jaden101
Originally posted by Digi
Which is why it's ok to do them in the butt.

yes



fdog

Thank God...Cos I never ask for permission.

FistOfThe North
Originally posted by AthenasTrgrFngr
do you understand half of the words you used in that post? serious question.

read it slower, i guess.

and i hope the pope heard the man too. or hears of the speech.

i'm all for the fall of catholicism. i'm all for the fall of all religion but that's not gonna happen anytime soon. hopefully with oncoming and inevitable technological advances more and more'll be revealed in the form of actual evidence which'll in turn slowly but surely melt away false diety beliefs. facts cannot be refuted i don't care how faithful you are.

i hope i get to see the evolution in my lifetime.

inimalist
just taking a moment to cosign "science and technology wont destroy belief and religion"

FistOfThe North
Originally posted by inimalist
just taking a moment to cosign "science and technology wont destroy belief and religion"

why?

facts are irrifutable. you'd have to be either ignorant on purpose or an absolute imbecile to deny actual evidence or factual proof that you can hold and see and examine. no matter how devout a person is, you cannot deny something that is clearly "there".

less people believe in God more than ever before because of what science and technological advancements have proven. along with what religious people haven't proven. it's only a matter of time until the destruction of belief and religion happens because of advance science and technological developements.

it won't happen overnight and maybe not even in my lifetime but i'll die a happy man knowing that it will happen.

RE: Blaxican
For a former raging racist and discriminator, you're awfully optimistic about the average person's intellectuality.

inimalist
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
why?

facts are irrifutable. you'd have to be either ignorant on purpose or an absolute imbecile to deny actual evidence or factual proof that you can hold and see and examine. no matter how devout a person is, you cannot deny something that is clearly "there".

less people believe in God more than ever before because of what science and technological advancements have proven. along with what religious people haven't proven. it's only a matter of time until the destruction of belief and religion happens because of advance science and technological developements.

it won't happen overnight and maybe not even in my lifetime but i'll die a happy man knowing that it will happen.

FACT: you don't believe in science because you are smart

Bicnarok
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
why?

facts are irrifutable. you'd have to be either ignorant on purpose or an absolute imbecile to deny actual evidence or factual proof that you can hold and see and examine. no matter how devout a person is, you cannot deny something that is clearly "there".



The problem is religious people can dream up endless scenarious to fit their "God" into any situation which may occur or be discovered by science, mainly because they are deaply dissalussional probably due to brainwashed from an early age.

An alien space ship could arrive and the occupants bring about clear evidence that they started it all off to help us, that they genetically altered us or whatever. These would then be deemed fallen angels trying to mislead the earth.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
For a former raging racist and discriminator, you're awfully optimistic about the average person's intellectuality.

I lol'd!

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
For a former raging racist and discriminator, you're awfully optimistic about the average person's intellectuality.

I'm not too sure about the former part, but that's otherwise a good point.

Digi
Originally posted by King Castle
my views are tempered by my philosophical MA zen upbringing and my respect of the constitution. my beliefs would never allow me to support hitler nor any of his views even if deep down i wanted to....

plus, i dont agree that being Nordic is the perfect race nor do i think any one race is the ideal human..

my belief is to combine the best of various racist to create the perfect human... great physical attributes, intelligent mind, strong immune system no genetic disposition to genetic flaws/disease..

cosmetic outward appearance would be a bonus but of no real importance... i personally prefer: a cinnamon color tan, green or blue eyes.. light brown hair with high lights, high cheek bones, 5'9 to 6'3.

i know who i would want to eliminate and where to start but, never would i act upon it.. but, if war were to occur for other reasons i would see it as a good thing seeing as it would be one step closer to my goals..

http://gamevideos.1up.com/video/id/23559


honestly i would be non violate in my approach mostly setting up laws of who can procreate and why.... ppl with severe genetic flaws where children have a high chance of being born severely handicap would not be allowed to have children. if they did i would sterilize them at birth....

i would idolize and reward ppl who had the traits i admired and wanted from giving them scholarships in sports/schools or private government programs which would be military oriented with high standards...

if ppl didnt want to live in my society they can leave...

it would be beautiful world a Utopia where the strong would survive as nature intended... no more would the weak and cowardly live by and leech off those meant to survive.

I saw the following today and thought of you:
http://xkcd.com/603/

Make sure to read the scrollover text. It's basically how I feel about your stupid plan. We're making progress and life is pretty awesome, despite whatever flaws you find with it.

inimalist
to be fair though, every prof I've ever spoken to, and there is a fairly tall stack of research supporting it, does lament, at the very least, the loss of importance put on personal academic/intellectual achievement and the consequences thereof.

The MISTER
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
why?

facts are irrifutable. you'd have to be either ignorant on purpose or an absolute imbecile to deny actual evidence or factual proof that you can hold and see and examine. no matter how devout a person is, you cannot deny something that is clearly "there".

less people believe in God more than ever before because of what science and technological advancements have proven. along with what religious people haven't proven. it's only a matter of time until the destruction of belief and religion happens because of advance science and technological developements.

it won't happen overnight and maybe not even in my lifetime but i'll die a happy man knowing that it will happen. You'll die one day is something that you're aware of that proves that you'll have to answer for what you did while you were alive. Human intelligence is unique in this world and it's no more coincidental than the laws of science that hold everything together.

The only reason that people want to disprove Gods existence (which they can't) is so they can let go of the last remnants of resposibility for their behavior. When a person lies to themself about something that they themselves did being "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest" when they really just chose to be evil, the elimination of a judge that can punish them is a comforting idea.

I'm not a zealot but there's an obvious spirit world that is just as much a mystery as the physical world that we still have only seen less than 1% of. They co-exist and we'll never understand either fully in this world.

Disproving God is as impossible to do as disproving the fact that it's all just a dream. As ridiculous as that sounds humans have the God given gift to believe what they choose to believe....and when you destroy that, that's when you can say that you've destroyed faith. Good luck with that by the way. smokin'

Dr. Leg Kick
http://img807.imageshack.us/img807/4666/jacketc.png

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by The MISTER
...The only reason that people want to disprove Gods existence (which they can't) is so they can let go of the last remnants of resposibility for their behavior. ...

That seems backward to me. It seems that the reason people look for a god is to try and find someone to blame for their actions. "The devil made me do it" is just one example.

Digi
Originally posted by The MISTER
The only reason that people want to disprove Gods existence (which they can't) is so they can let go of the last remnants of resposibility for their behavior. When a person lies to themself about something that they themselves did being "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest" when they really just chose to be evil, the elimination of a judge that can punish them is a comforting idea.

Wow, and here I thought the people who equate Darwinism with Evil, and who believe that non-theists have no moral responsibility, only existed in fundamentalist church meetings and propaganda literature.

The paragraph I quoted of yours is false, plain and simple. The reasons why are too numerous to list, and I lament only that such ignorance is latched onto as a way of justifying belief systems and slandering the non-religious.

The MISTER
Originally posted by Digi
Wow, and here I thought the people who equate Darwinism with Evil, and who believe that non-theists have no moral responsibility, only existed in fundamentalist church meetings and propaganda literature.

The paragraph I quoted of yours is false, plain and simple. The reasons why are too numerous to list, and I lament only that such ignorance is latched onto as a way of justifying belief systems and slandering the non-religious. People who kill for fun and never get caught are success stories if people will not be held accountable and humans are only "survival of the fittest" beasts at heart. Some people who say that they are non-religious are religiously kind and loving to their fellow man. I believe a fair judge awaits for us and that the fairness is pure and not what men call fairness at all. Everyone does something religously even if it's taking showers every day...so you must be suggesting that I'm slandering non-believers. Well if a person doesn't believe in anything at all,not truth, fairness, responsibilty, mercy, patience, charity, duty, kindness, or love then they're deserving of what? Praise? Anyone who truely has nothing to believe in nothing deserves pity. sad

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.