*clap clap clap*

well played, Mr. Maher.

PS: in all honesty, he publically praised the courage of the 9/11 hijackers, attempting to convince his 1.8 viewership ratings that it takes courage, not cowardace, to blow yourself up in a plane full of civilians. Class act, he is.

not courage. True courage faces its enemies toe to toe. Bill Maher, on the other hand, thinks suicide bombers are courageous and he demonstrates that courage by engaging in battles of wits with teenage kids, then invites us to watch and laugh as he does it.

the man is an ass, and lets not confuse him for some philosophical giant - he's a stand-up comedian. Its schtick he's doing, not biting social commentary. he's doing it for the luls like an asshat in a necktie.

on the other hand, Mr Maher IS ON RECORD saying that suicide bombers use courage.

This explanation was a strictly military observation, not a tacit defense or support of any particular suicide bomber or the practice of suicide bombing in particular, just a certain perspective on the phenomenon.

I guess the most you can infer from it is that both airstrikes and suicide bombings rest on the same ethical level, at least from an objective point of view.

Those who live in glass houses, and all that, huh?

Terrorism is something else, granted, but again, trying to ascribe some kind of civilian morality to it fall short of explaining it. Some people consider what we did to Japan with the bomb was worse than their attack on Pearl. It's a slippery slope, to start claiming objectivity, when you're clearly not.

If the 150 million killed in this century had little to do with Communism, then they had even less to do with religion. I like your view of this human instinct we label good coming from within us. I don't agree with it, but it is a sweet thought (and no, I'm not being a wise-ass.) This view of yours, that religion was based on this human trait kind of proves the point I want to make that religion, if based on good, is good! I agree, the absense of religion does not denote the absense of morality. There are some wonderful atheists out there, just as there are some vile Christians. You say that the fact that atheists commit evil acts is not because they are atheists. Okay, I can go with that. Where I have to disagree with you is where you say that Religious crimes are commited BECAUSE of the religion of the criminal. You say that various crimes are carried out by true believers "honestly thinking they were doing their deity's will." That's the key phrase here. Up on the talkbalk I said that people commit atrocities not BECAUSE of their religion, but IN SPITE of their religion. It is because of a horrific misinterpretation of faith that these murders occur. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that it is okay for a person who disagrees with abortion should kill an abortion doctor. Using your view, that religion was based on the goodness of man and not the other way around, then religion is probably a way to what? Articulate that feeling? Then it is a good thing. I feel religion, at its core, is here to make the world a better place. I must say, I have enjoyed this exchange. It's nice to run into somebody who disagrees with me who doesn't resort to name-calling. The word "douchebag" gets use more in talkbacks than on the floor of a douchebag factory. :)

You articulated your points very well and you gave a clear view as to how you think about this topic. I hope I gave just as clear a view as to how I think about this topic.

And now...back to work again. *sigh*

next time you open your stupid flap and want to talk about my glass house, try to make sure yours isnt totally full of bullshit first.

My point was that you can't point to the wonderful monuments of religion and claim them as evidence of religion's inherent 'good' for the world. The people who built those monuments certainly didn't think it was a good idea. religion has been a good thing for some people sometimes, but just as often it has been a method of subjugation. You can't have one without the other, and to deny one in favor of the other is disingenuous, to say the least. Were the beautiful religious murals painted by Michelangelo worth 5 centuries of the Inquisition? Religion is equally responsible for both, you can't cherry-pick.

whose the dumb dumb now?

You've tripped on your poncho with a couple people already. Dust yourself off and walk away.

"For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength."

I can't talk atheists out of their beliefs, nor into mine. But it sure is fun to try, right?

Now, if you want to say that at times religious organizations held back human progress because it was contrary to their beliefs, then I could agree with you.

The problem comes when what I want to believe (and what therefore motivates my behavior) conflicts with somebody else's motives and behaviors. So the problem stems from everybody doing whatever is right in their own eyes. How as atheists do you get around that?

"read it yourself. I dont have time."

now wasn't that simple and to the point? If I continued to barrage you with an endless list of words and demanded that you offer me the definitions to them, wouldn't you eventually resign to telling me to grab a dictionary and look them up myself? Thats what Im telling you. Im not here to respond to your inquisitives - if you really want to know, you can look it up.

But your concern is appreciated nonetheless.

And Bill Maher, the stand-up comedian, remains a tool.

Also, I sling yet another internet insult at you and await your inevitable and unavoidable retort.

You ask how one can know the difference between right and wrong? That's the question, and the seeking of the answer, that makes us human. You're right, laws change, but so does religion. Religion used to BE law, it still is in some places, but then, we had the age of reason, the enlightenment, the advent of science, etcetera, true investigations into the mysteries and paradoxes of the human spirit, and those explorations continue today. The only people I would consider truly morally suspect are the ones who have convinced themselves that they are above such speculation, that all their thinking on the matter has been done for them, thousands of years ago. I've argued elsewhere that religion is not the genesis of morality, but in fact religion is the codification of morality. Morality came first, and humans constructed religion around it, and then claimed sole propriety over a much older, much more innate and natural instinct toward 'good'. This of course attacks the common religious belief that religion isn't a human construct at all, which is where it becomes impossible to argue, but there you have it.

The most effective way of preventing someone from reaching their destination is to convince them that they are already there.

If people of faith and true atheists could just learn to ignore one another, we wouldn't have this problem. But its an endless barrage of "invisible sky man" insults and "I have something you aren't worthy of" retorts that always always ALWAYS escalate and reach a fever pitch. At different times in human history, different sides have played the aggressor - so neither can play the victim card. But at times when there is peace, or even a passive aggression, the ones that cast the first stone need to be stomped flat, swiftly and firmly. Its the only way to keep the aggression passive.

erich, Why what? Why quote scripture? Why believe in God? Well, I love Him because He first loved me. If that isn't good enough for you, then I can't answer your question any better. Though I'm curious; how do you define living your life better than me?

The problem with all these debates comes after the word "furthermore..." - why do people INSIST on adding these cheap shots to footnote debates that amount to little more than declaring what your favorite color may or may not be? Thats where the strife comes from.

When religious people tell me that If I'm an atheist it means that I don't believe in anything, I think about all that, and I shake my head. Of course, you just look at all that and say "God did it", and that's good enough for you. Oh well, different strokes, I guess.

I think what religious people really have a problem with isn't the idea that the mind evolved, but that this implies that the soul itself must have also evolved. There really isn't anything so remarkable about the mind evolving, scientifically speaking. opposable thumbs and a healthy pack mentality, as well as some other physiological attributes, led to all kinds of leaps of intuition over the years. And it's millions, not thousands, of years, it's difficult to wrap one's head around that, I know, but it makes quite a difference.

There's a point to be made that a religion that can't adapt to an ever-changing world, and an ever-expanding field of knowledge about our world is doomed to wither and become irrelevant. That's what baffles me about the resistance to the mounting evidence of Global Warming, or Intelligent Design or Creationism movements- they're just so astonishingly counter-intuitive, so stridently hostile to neutral, reasonable ways of thinking that are not in and of themselves anti-religious, that it reminds me of the Shakespearean line: "thou doth protest too much". There's something very competetive about it, as if the creationists believe that science is an adversary, like a visiting football team, horning in on turf that was already claimed by religion. How very macho. In fact, and I'm sure you all understand this- science isn't actually a belief system or an ideology, it's a method, and one that is built on the premise that it can be wrong, often is wrong, and will never be complete. It's an open-minded process, whereas the creationist's version of Christianity is air-tight and hermetically sealed against even the most passive investigation.

One thing that always amuses me about Creationists is their adopting of the empirical state of 'theory' as applied to Natural Selection. "Darwin's theory is just that- a theory", they announce, triumphantly, firmly believing that they have felled Goliath with his own stone. Well, Like I said, Science is a method, and in fact, all science, (with the exception of a fraction of the observable stuff and phenomena that make up our immediate surroundings) is "just a theory". That's how science works. The empirical process begins with an idea, opinion, or leap of intuition, or most often, an unexpected accident, then a hypothesis is formed. Once the hypothesis has been put through a series of tests it becomes a theory. At any point along this line if anything goes wrong, if the hypothesis falls apart under evidence, it never reaches the level of theory. A theory becomes a theory when everything goes right, when all tests and evidence add up to what the hypothesis posits, but something like evolution can't become scientific fact because no one has so far sat down to observe the process over millions of years and take notes. Empirically speaking, it remains 'just a theory', But a theory with almost 200 years of rigorous, mounting evidence and experimentation that supports it. With each and every field of scholarship in science that has developed since Victorian times, geology, chemistry, biology, anthropology, (among others) the theory of evolution has been supported. Not once, in almost two centuries has the slightest hint that there might be something wrong with it ever shown up. So "Just a theory" actually means a great, great deal.

It's ironic that the method of science that prevents it from labeling evolution as fact is the thing most infinitely sensible about it, and the thing that creationists try to use against it, without any sense.

I've addressed in earlier posts the idea that science does not require of itself a perfectly rendered map in order to prove its own merit, that in fact, it's a process, not a belief system. This is crucial- just because science cannot point to every step along the evolutionary path does not amount to a dismissal of this or any other theory. IT IS A PROCESS. We are still finding evidence, we are still learning about it, after millions of years, we've only been studying it for less than 200. And yet, in all that time, nothing yet has been discovered that disproves the theory. All it would take is one piece of evidence, a fossilized footprint in the wrong geological place, a skull that shouldn't exist in the fossil record, even something microscopic (and believe me, there has been a concentrated search for just such a piece of evidence) but nothing yet. Just because we can't show a creationist the roadmap, doesn't mean the terrain doesn't exist. The same argument is used everyday by people with faith. The difference is, ours is an open-minded process, seeking answers we may not expect or want, whereas faith already has the answer it wants, and dismisses whatever doesn't fit arbitrarily.

It's a fallacy to suggest that just because something like evolution is 'unprovable', it automatically puts it in the same category as any theory you could imagine. There are degrees, there is a spectrum of logic, assumption, circumstantial and peripheral evidence, informed argument that can point you in the proper direction, as long as you remain objective. It's a matter of reason. If you've never been to China, how do you know it's really there? Well, a very convincing case can be made for the existence of China. What about Unicorns? Do Unicorns have horns coming out the top of their heads? The answer is no, because there are no Unicorns. How do I know this? Is it a matter of faith? Unicorns are mentioned in the Bible, after all. Maybe Unicorns do exist. Except that they don't, the notion is absurd, and it offends our sense of logic.

By the creationist argument, not only should we teach ID in schools, we should also teach of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Atlantis, the Man in the Moon, Superman, Alien Abduction, protection against Zombies, Vampires and Werewolves... the list goes on.

Science is not a threat to faith. I truly believe that science and faith can be reconciled beautifully, the only people who in this day and age are still refusing to listen to reason need to construct elaborate cages of smoke and mirrors just to maintain their own blindness. Science has no agenda, other than to fulfill the human impulse to seek truth, to see what lies beyond the scope of our understanding. I believe that faith, ultimately, has the same goal, but belief systems like creationism, in the 21st century at least, do violence to that very human instinct. There's nothing wrong with believing in God, and there's nothing wrong with not believing in Him. What is wrong is denying yourself the full experience of the world, and what it means to be alive, because of a misguided fundementalism that doesn't allow for an expanded view beyond a 2000 year old text.

That said, I don't think we're witnessing the death-throes of monotheism or anything. The reason so many people adhere to these belief systems speaks to a deeper, more resilient fact of our nature that won't be eradicated until something truly cataclysmic happens to us as a species; either some kind of spontaneous evolution, or a paradigm-shift the likes of which can scarcely be imagined (alien invasion??) basically, we're still skating the line between animal and divine, we're adolescents, and for that reason religion, and specifically monotheism, isn't going anywhere.

anecdotally, I believe that the reason we still wage war has a lot to do with the fact that from an evolutionary standpoint, humans aren't that different from other life-forms on Earth, meaning, we still operate according to a biological program that compells us to kill in order to survive. Since we've outgrown the actual necessity for that program, but not the program itself, we've found contemporary, modern, sentient ways to carry out this programming, which is evident in the simple fact that we still murder eachother almost as an inevitable fact of existence with bombs and guns and terrorism. For millenia, humans were taught that you don't kill the people on this side of the river, you kill the people on that side of the river. Even with all our progress and advances, ultimately, we're still behaving like pack animals fighting over the water-hole or the hunting grounds. Right up until the middle of the last century, all human endeavor was arguably the result of intense violence. I say all this as a preable to my main point- which is that monotheism plays just as much of an intrinsic part to our base programming as the instinct to kill to survive does. We haven't evolved to a point yet where we don't need soldiers, or police anymore. We also haven't evolved to a point where we don't need the concept of a patriarchal God figure to justify our existence. That's not to say that we should all go blindly down the trodden path, quite the contrary. But to expect something as intrinsically human (at least so far) as a comfortable, pre-packaged answer to the greatest mystery to suddenly become irrelevant is asking too much of us.

We are making progress, but it's slow, really, really fucking slow, and for now, atheists are the weirdos. Maybe our progeny a thousand generations from now will initiate true change, but until then, we have to be satisfied with the knowledge that we are living proof that we're on that path, as well.

What reason do you have for living? Why do you exist? To experience the next moment? To have the most toys at death? To obtain immortality through literature, history, etc? What if you never accomplish that? What if you're born, you live, you die? Is that all there is to life? Is that enough for you?

just wondering...

The same question can be put to religious people. Why do continue to live on Earth, if heaven is so much better?

Also- If God is omnipotent and omniscient, and controls reality now and after you die, how can you ever be free? Isn't that a form of extreme subjugation? You didn't choose to be born. I know you'll say that God is love, but isn't that just as bad? And, if you say you love Him, what if that's just a metaphysical form of Stockholm Syndrome? You love Him because you have no choice but to love Him.

That guy Christopher Hitchens equated living with God to living in a kind of Cosmic North Korea. Funny, rude, and kind of true.

But there is a debate whether Jewish slaves built them or the Egyptians themselves, as some archeologists say there that other than the Bible, there are no records of Jewish slaves in that area at all. That's maybe what you're mistaken about.

I was responding to Grey's assertion that atheists wouldn't know that, since we don't believe that it is God's world, but that it's just a world, and we're living on it.

I don't disparage believers their belief that the world is beautiful because of God, but I don't understand why believers believe that it's necessary.

I believe the garden is beautiful, without having to believe that there are faeries at the bottom of it.

Faith is just faith. It is good at its core, and can be horribly misused by idiots. That does not render it a bad thing.

And I'm a Christina, btw, but I think people think to embrace faith you must ignore fact, whereas I think God isn't afraid of facts.

By the way, you know where Christians got that evolution 'remains a theory'? From science. Yep. That's right.

Read it. Love it.

How many Christians would be hollering that it was 'Just a theory'?

On a side note, is English your second language? That's not an insult. Just interesting speech patterns.

But after all this time, wouldn't it be funny if a pantheon of deities like the Greek gods were the real ones?

Somewhere up there, Zeus is pissed!

As a secular humanist (look it up in wikipedia) my hope is that this movie at least makes people think about the issue and perhaps for others will open them up to wanting to read Dawkins etc.

As a Non-American looking on, it is worrying seeing religion mixing with politics (i.e. Stem Cell debate, teaching creationism in school) at least its not at the level of some of the Islamic nations where Bill could be executed for his differing beliefs.

Currently reading "Infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali - definetely recommend this one and especially those who are still deluded in believing Islam is a religion of peace.

I don't mind an atheist. What I don't like is angry, mocking, smug atheists. I can't really speak to this film, but Maher's attitude tends to be "See how stupid you are for believing such idiotic things?" He and others like him use the most heinous, extreme parts of religion to say we're better off without it. Now, I'll agree that that's definitely worth an argument. But some people go to church because of the religion, not the man made organization. I know it's hard for some people to separate the two, though. I do believe this without a doubt, though... If you remove the trappings of 2000 years of the church and some of its more questionable rules and regulations, and just look at Jesus as a philosopher, and live by those basic teachings, life would be better for you and for everyone else. As I grow older, I certainly have come to look at the organization as less important than the message.

"If any man comes to me, and doesn't hate his father, mother, wife, children, brothers and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

Most Christians don't take this verse literally. Most Christians don't hate their families. They decide that it's a metaphor, that Jesus was trying to make a point by exaggerating. They decide that hating one's family is wrong, so they conclude that Jesus didn't really mean what He said.

But... doesn't that mean that Christians are deciding for themselves what's right and what's wrong?

If Christians truly got their morals from their religion, they would read Luke 14:26, and hate whomever Jesus tells them to hate. But they don't. Why is that?

Because they're deciding their morals for themselves.

What I'm trying to say is, maybe moral relativism is the saner alternative to Biblical fundamentalism. Thoughts?

It tears at my stomach and brings me profound sorrow to say it. But I must. George W. Bush is a hard-hearted, calculating killer who merely pretends to be a Christian. Believe it and be prepared for the worse."

- Texe Marrs

Chipps, we look down on you because you are stupid

Voltaire said, i don't agree with you but i will defend to the death your right to say it. without meeting you i don't accept that you know more about these proof than i do. and i have not and will not be rude to you. the only reason i look down on you is the way in which you pose your views, not your views themselves.

That's it for me. Goodnight everybody!!!

Please notice the picture above with an upside-down cross. In his article, The Kingdom of Satan, Professor J. S. Malan says this about the inverted cross:

"This cross is not broken, but turned upside down. It indicates the rejection of Jesus Christ and contempt for the gospel of salvation. Inverted symbols are typical of the opposite values pursued by Satanists. People who are sometimes sacrificed to Satan on Black Sabbath are crucified upside down in accordance with this tradition."

“...even now are there many antichrists…” -I John 2:18.

It is easy to find Satanic websites and occult stores where you can purchase all types of items with inverted crosses. The "Upside Down Cross” symbolizes mockery and rejection of Jesus. Necklaces are worn by many Satanists. It can often be seen on Rock singers and their album covers."

By Henry Makow Ph.D.

"Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom (1913)

The "Maryland Sniper" is on everyone's mind.

In March, Svali, an ex-Illuminati mind controller wrote:

"There is a lot more going on in the suburbs around Washington, DC than most people realize," She described how the Illuminati cult brainwashed and trained people to become assassins.

Has the mainstream media suggested a possible link to this cult? Do I need to ask?

In Svali's words, "who do you think owns AOL-Time Warner?"

To date, 12 people have been hit. Will the sniper stop at 13? Thirteen is a significant number in Freemasonry, which is an Illuminati vehicle. Thirteen represents Christ and his 12 disciples. The number signifies their scorn and hatred for Christianity.

The "Maryland sniper," (like September 11 and the "War on Terror") appear designed to traumatize and manipulate the public. I'm guessing that the sniper's "purpose" is to build a case for gun control and domestic involvement by the military.

Did you know that a "terrorist" started the First World War by killing the heir to the Austrian throne? The terrorist was a Freemason. Most wars are engineered by the Illuminati to weaken civilization and create a global police state, the "New World Order."

We need to see current events in a new way. The conflict is NOT between countries or religions or "civilizations."

The conflict is between the people and most of our "leaders" -- government, media, religion, education and business -- who owe their position to this extremely powerful and evil cult. They are traitors.

Who is the Illuminati? We are still living off the twilight rays of Western Civilization, which was based on Christianity. Civilization is always based on a religion, an ideal. Christ taught that God is Immanent and His Plan is to manifest Himself through His Creation. We must do His will rather than pursue our own selfish desires. Kings derived their authority from God and were answerable to Him.

The Jewish Pharisees rejected Christ. They practised a naturalistic religion that turned Christ's message on its head. Man is God, rules the universe, and defines reality. We can indulge our desires. Dating back to Zoroastrianism, the Jewish Cabala reverses the roles of God and Lucifer and embraces occult symbols, rituals and blood sacrifices.

This is the Cosmic Struggle between Spirit and Matter: God will be Immanent; Matter will resist. This is the conflict between God (the view that man is unfinished, and dependent on Divine revelation) and Lucifer (man is already god.)

The Cabalists secretly dedicated themselves to destroying Christianity and Western civilization. In 1773 Amschel Mayer Rothschild convened a meeting of 12 prominent Jewish bankers and other prominent Jewish personalities and submitted a programme to level the social order using the contradictory promise of "liberty" and "equality." In 1776, they had Adam Weishaupt organize the Order of the Illuminati, which merged with Freemasonry in 1782. Freemasonry is Cabala and, in the words of Andre Krylienko, (The Red Thread) it was "launched for the purpose of enlisting non-Jews consciously or unconsciously in the service of Jewry."

The Illuminati was behind the revolutionary movements of the 18th -- 20th Century as well as their respective reigns of terror. The bankers used their power to spread their Satanic convictions. They had finagled a monopoly on credit (usurping the government's right to create money) and they needed to control the world in order to protect this prize.

Their influence on world history can be seen in the story of the red hexagram, commonly known as the "Star of David." According to researcher Fritz Springmeier, the Star of David was not associated with Jews until the Rothschilds adopted it as their symbol in 1822. The Rothschilds were considered the leaders of the Jews but I don't know if the Jews knew the Rothschilds were Satanists. The Star of David is really "The Seal of Solomon," an occult symbol for the Satanic. Solomon worshipped the star "Astoreth."

Before we feel smug, the Great Seal of the United States is also a Masonic symbol. According to Eustace Mullins, the top of the pyramid is missing to indicate that they have not yet put into operation the final stages of their conspiracy. "The eye represents that Great Architect of the Universe, a cabalist concept; it is enclosed in a triangle which is the symbol of magic. The thirteen steps refer to Satan, Belial and rebellion..." (The Curse of Canaan, 141) The inscription "Novo Ordo Seclorum" means "New Secular Order."

Mullins says the leading international bankers were motivated by freemasonry: "From the year 1776, Freemasonry has been an omnipresent international government operating treasonably from within the United States, and it has exercised those powers ever since."

Without fanfare, Freemasonry is being introduced as the New World Religion. We are being brainwashed with it every day. So you need to know that:

Freemasonry is a religion that believes Lucifer is the "God of light and God of good, struggling for humanity against Adonay, God of darkness and evil."

It is a secret society that demands adherents swear blind obedience on pain of death before they even know what it represents.

It practises deception. It reserves its truths for the adept; the initiate is "intentionally mislead by false interpretations."

It preaches "tolerance" and the universality of all religions in order to negate them all. Christianity is especially abjured. "Universality does not mean Christianity." (Quotes from Masonic Texts from Gary Kah, En Route to Global Occupation pp.120-140)

Freemasonry is taught to your child. For example, a survey of schools in my city shows that 75% no longer use the word "Christmas" to describe their holiday season festivities. Instead Christmas has been replaced with such jargon as "winter concerts" and "international celebration of holidays."

The Christmas tree at the Legislature was renamed "multicultural tree" until a storm of protest forced the politicians to relent.

"We have to abandon our culture in order to respect everyone else's? It's kind of silly." one parent complained.

But this is exactly the agenda: To destroy Christianity, just as they have destroyed empires, nations, heterosexual identities and nuclear families. The agenda is to strip people of power and identity leaving us defenceless in the face of one-world tyranny.

The lesson of this story is that God is indispensable. He is Reality. We cannot deny Him without denying the principle of our own fulfillment. A secular world order is prey to the devil. This is impasse we are in. We are ruled by a satanic cult.

Some things we can do: 1) boycott the mass media; 2) "out" politicians, teachers and media figures who are pushing the freemason agenda; 3) refuse to hate other people or fight other countries; 4) celebrate the things the Masons hate -- nationhood (internationalism causes war) heterosexual identities, nuclear families, Christianity and God.

for fucks sake, can i please go ten minutes without hearing about that guy!

By Henry Makow Ph.D.

"The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." J. Edgar Hoover

The world is in the malignant grip of a satanic cult.

People recoil at the suggestion but proof stares us in the face every day.

George W. Bush, President of the "Free World" is a member of "Skull and Bones" a chapter of the Illuminati order. His father, grandfather and uncle are also members.

In his autobiography, "A Charge to Keep" Bush writes, "My senior year I joined Skull and Bones, a secret society so secret I can't say anything more." In Aug. 2000 he said his "heritage is part of who I am."

Hello! Can a man hold any public office, let alone the most important, and belong to a "secret society"? If this society were benign, would it have to be secret?

What a secret society it is! The Illuminati is the hidden hand behind all modern cataclysms, including the French and Russian Revolutions, Communism, the Depression and Nazism. To affect the course of history only takes money. The people behind the Illuminati have plenty.

It's time we faced reality. Murphy's Law applies to humanity. "If it can go wrong, it will."

It has. The world is ruled by a satanic cult.

THE ILLUMINATI AND THE SKULL AND BONES

The Illuminati originates in the Jewish Kabala, Babylonian mystery cults, the Templars, Freemasons and assorted interests dedicated to Satan worship and absolute power. On May 1 1776, Adam Weishaupt, a professor at the University of Inglestadt in Germany, founded "The Order of the Illuminati." Many people believe Weishaupt was sponsored by Prince William of Hesse Casel and his banker Meyer Amschel Rothschild, the wealthiest man in the world.

The Illuminati's goal was to destroy Western Civilization and to erect a new world order ruled by them. Its method was to dissolve all social ties (employer, nation, religion, race, family) by exploiting social discontent and promising a golden age of "human brotherhood." This is now called "globalization."

Attracted by the promise of power and change, people served without realizing who or what they were supporting. Weishaupt urged his followers to "practise the art of counterfeit." New recruits were told the Illuminati expressed the original spirit of Christianity. Weishaupt marvelled that even churchmen could be gulled. "Oh! Men, of what cannot you be persuaded?" (Nesta Webster, World Revolution, 1921, p. 27)

The Illuminati had a hand in every so-called "progressive" movement of the past 200 years. Women, said Weishaupt, were to be enlisted with "hints of emancipation." They "can all be led toward change by vanity, curiosity, sensuality and inclination." (Webster, 29)

William Huntington, an American who had studied in Germany, founded the "Skull and Bones" (Chapter 322 of the Bavarian Illuminati) at Yale University in 1832. The members wore a death's head on their chests and were sworn to secrecy on pain of death. "The Order" became the preserve of the leading New England families, many wealthy from the Opium trade. These include the Whitneys, Tafts, Buckleys, Lowells, Sloans, Coffins, and Harrimans. The Bush family was dependent on these interests.

For over 150 years, "Bonesmen" have run the world from positions in banking, intelligence, media, law and government. Members included Presidential handler Averell Harriman, anti war leader William Sloan Coffin, Time-Life magnate Henry Luce, Truman war secretary Henry Stimson (responsible for dropping the atomic bomb), pseudo conservative William F. Buckley and many more.

"THE BATTLE IS NOT BETWEEN LEFT AND RIGHT"

In the 1960's British-born Dr. Anthony Sutton was a Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institute when he discovered that, in spite of the Cold War, the US was supplying the USSR with its technology, including weapons used against American soldiers in Vietnam. Sutton dug deeper and discovered that Wall Street had sponsored both the Bolshevik Revolution and the rise of Nazi Germany. The resulting books which are on line cost Dr. Sutton his academic career.

In 1983, Dr. Sutton received a list of Skull and Bones members and immediately recognized the names of many men who controlled American policy. He published a book entitled "America's Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull and Bones" (1986). He updated and republished this book just before his death last June at age 77. Here are some of his conclusions.

"The Order" is " a purely American phenomenon with German origin." Dr. Sutton compares it to the Round Table, Cecil Rhodes' secret society at Oxford also known as "The Group." The American and British entities consist of 20-30 dynastic families each. Jewish banking interests connect them.

"The links between 'The Order' and Britain go through Lazard Freres and the private merchant banks... 'The Group' links to the Jewish equivalent through the Rothschilds in Britain... 'The Order' in the US links to the Guggenheim, Schiff and Warburg families." (23)

As Dr. Sutton notes, the "Order" had definite anti Semitic tendencies but by the 1960's, many Jewish names started to appear among the 15 annual inductees. See list of Skull and Bones members.

Dr. Sutton believes the "left" versus "right" split is fraudulent and used to control the debate and condition citizens to think along certain lines. Left-wing magazines like the "The Nation" and "The New Republic" and right-wing magazines like "The National Review were "artificially set up." The former were financed by Whitney money while the latter by Buckley. Both are "The Order."

Dr. Sutton states: "Sooner or later people will wake up. First we have to dump the trap of right and left. This is a Hegelian trap to divide and control. The battle is not between right and left; it is between us and them."

Similarly, in the international field left and right political structures are artificially constructed and collapsed in the drive for one-world synthesis, i.e. authoritarian socialism controlled by monopoly capital.

College textbooks present war and revolution as accidental results of conflicting forces. This is nonsense, says Dr. Sutton. They are created and financed by Wall Street to create a new world order. But you won't read this in history books.

"Our Western history is every bit as distorted, censored and largely useless as that of Hitler's Germany or the Soviet Union or Communist China..." (122)

Dr. Sutton believes The Order has many weaknesses resulting from an inbred gene pool, a shallow power base and a limited worldview. In any future conflict between the authoritarian state and the individual, he believes opposition will take "a million forms."

" No one is going to create the anti-The Order movement. That would be foolish and unnecessary. It could be infiltrated, bought off, or diverted all too easily. Why play by the rules set by the enemy?

The movement that will topple The Order will be extremely simple and most effective. It will be ten thousand or a million Americans who come to the conclusion that they don't want the State to be boss, that they prefer to live under the protection of the Constitution. They will make their own independent decision to thwart The Order and it will take ten thousand or a million forms." (55)

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE

Bizarre as it sounds, our world is the product of a multi generational satanic conspiracy. (Believe me I would give everything I own to be wrong.)

When we compare this disturbing conclusion with the comforting picture purveyed by Illuminati controlled-mass media and education, we experience "cognitive dissonance," or psychological stress. This is usually resolved by evading reality, dismissing it as "conspiracy theory."

One reader, stirring in his sleep, wrote: "You sir are T-TOTALLY the biggest story teller I have ever heard. If I ever get really bored I will read some of your concockions."

In fact, conspiracy is very plausible. People who control a grossly disproportionate share of the world's wealth will take measures to consolidate their position. They will destabilize the public by inciting a series of wars and other mind-boggling hoaxes (communism, lesbian feminism, multiculturalism). They will subvert faith in a loving God and promote violence and depravity (Satan) instead.

The government-inspired 9-11 atrocity proves a satanic cult controls the US. Bush and his accomplices are criminals, traitors and impostors. But don't look to the Democrats for salvation. Leading contender Sen. John Kerry is also Skull and Bones (Class of 1966.)

The "War on Terror" is obviously designed to forestall domestic opposition and condition people to further subjugation and new world order. What can we do?

Antony Sutton had it right when he said opposition should be individual in character. It should "take ten thousand or a million forms."

•Jewish press articles have questioned circumcision.

•One is Jewish based on parental or conversion status, not whether one is circumcised.

•Jewish circumcision has never had anything to do with health concerns.

•Circumcision conflicts with significant Jewish laws and values.

Jewish mothers who did not circumcise:

"Every time I change his diaper, I feel so good we didn't do it."

Pregnant mothers sometimes reveal that they hope for a girl to avoid circumcision.

Another mother recalled,

"My tiny son and I sobbed our hearts out. . . . After everything I'd worked for, carrying and nurturing Joseph in the womb, having him at home against no small odds, keeping him by my side constantly since birth, nursing him whenever he needed closeness and nourishment-the circumcision was a horrible violation of all I felt we shared. I cried for days afterward."

As we went around the room, several of these young rabbis related the case of their own son's circumcision, about which, it turned out, they frequently harbored intense rage – rage at themselves for allowing it to happen, and in some cases rage at the mohel who had done it and botched the job. Only here, in the intimacy of a class composed in large part of close friends, did they feel comfortable telling their tales. Stories proved cathartic; at one point people cried.

George Bush is an Antichrist.

2) you use as evidence that there is no god the teachings of a retard you believed in god

"For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." -Romans 16:18

If the Nazis and Japanese, perpetrators of the Holocaust and the rape of Nanking, had won WWII, two continents would have been subjugated by militaristic dictatorships with the "unfit" being exterminated, and every Jew wiped off the face of the Earth. but the Allies, who firebombed Dresden and dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, won. As a result, Germany and Japan were made into stable democracies.

Whether you found the tactics offensive or not, the Allies had a moral superiority in war.

Considering 86% of "the world" practices a religion, the only one that ends up seeming silly is Maher.

Two reviews on this movie, but not a single review of EXPELLED when it came out (which was released in more theaters than any other documentary).

aintitbiased?

Circumcision is commanded in Genesis 17:10-14 as an outward sign of a man's participation in Israel's covenant with God, as well as a sign that the Jewish people will perpetuate through him. The commandment is incumbent upon both father and child - fathers must see that their sons are circumcised, and uncircumcised grown men are obligated to perform the rite.

Those who are not circumcised suffer the penalty of kareit, no matter how otherwise observant they may be. Perhaps in part for this reason, circumcision is the mitzvah most likely to be observed by otherwise non-observant Jews.

Circumcision is so important that it may be performed on the Sabbath or a holiday, despite prohibitions of drawing blood on those days. Yet the ceremony may be postponed for health reasons, and then it cannot be performed until seven days after a physician has declared the child healthy. If this occurs, the rite cannot be performed on the Sabbath or holiday, because there is no longer sufficient reason to violate the general law of the holy days.

Circumcision is performed by a mohel, an observant Jew who has been trained in the relevant Jewish law and surgical techniques. (In most traditions, circumcision performed by a physician is not valid even if a rabbi is present, although the Reform movement has begun to accept such circumcisions.)

It is a preferable to have a minyan present for the ritual, but it is not necessary. Only the father and the mohel must be present, but the mother and the godparents (kwater and kwaterin) are usually present as well.

During the ceremony the child is held by a person designated as the sandek, who is usually a grandparent or family rabbi. An empty chair is set aside to symbolize the presence of the prophet Elijah, who rebuked those who had forsaken the ritual. He now presides over all circumcision ceremonies to ensure the continuation of the ritual.

Before the procedure, the infant may be given a couple of drops of wine to ease the pain. The mohel recites benedictions of circumcision, then the father offers the blessing:

Blessed are You, Adonai our God, Ruler of the Universe, who has sanctified us with your commandments and commanded us to bring him into the covenant of Abraham, our father.

Any guests present say, "Amen," and then give the blessing:

As he entered the covenant, may he enter into the study of Torah, into marriage and into the doing of good deeds. The procedure itself, which is very brief, then takes place with the sandek holding the infant in his lap. Afterwards, the child is bandaged, dressed, and given a name. The mother and father will often say a few words about the significance of the name. The event will usually be celebrated by a festive meal hosted by the family.

If a child was previously circumcised in a religiously invalid way, or born with no foreskin, the same ceremony is held but with only a symbolic pinprick of the tip of the penis. This ceremony is called the hatafat dam brit.

In recent years, circumcision has become something of a controversy, with some people denouncing the practice as unnecessary or harmful. {1} However, this is a medical issue, not a religious one. Very few Jews are convinced by those who believe circumcision to be mentally or physically damaging, and as far as it being medically unnecessary, it was never practiced for that reason. Like many mitzvot, circumcision is performed simply because God has commanded it and any practical benefits are secondary.

Taoism has never been a unified religion, but has rather consisted of numerous teachings based on various revelations. Therefore, different branches of Taoism often have very distinct beliefs. Nevertheless, there are certain core beliefs that nearly all the schools share.

Principles

Taoism theology emphasizes various themes found in the Tao Te Ching and Zhuangzi, such as naturalness, vitality, peace, "non-action" (wu wei), emptiness (refinement), detachment, the strength of softness (or flexibility), receptiveness, spontaneity, the relativism of human ways of life, ways of speaking and guiding behavior.

Tao

Tao can be roughly stated to be the flow of the universe, or the force behind the natural order. Tao is believed to be the influence that keeps the universe balanced and ordered. Tao is associated with nature, due to a belief that nature demonstrates the Tao. The flow of qi, as the essential energy of action and existence, is compared to the universal order of Tao. Tao is compared to what it is not, like the negative theology of Western scholars. It is often considered to be the source of both existence and non-existence.

Tao is rarely an object of worship, being treated more like the Indian concepts of atman and dharma. The word "Taoism" is used to translate different Chinese terms. Daojiao/Taochiao (道教 "teachings/religion of the Dao") refers to Daoism as a religion. Daojia/Taochia (道家 "school of the Dao") refers to the studies of scholars, or "philosophical" Taoism. However, most scholars have abandoned the dichotomy of "religious" and "philosophical" Taoism.

De

Tao is also associated with the complex concept of De (德) "power; virtue", which is the active expression of Tao. De is the active living, or cultivation, of that "way".

Wu wei

Wu wei is a central concept in Taoism. The literal meaning of wu wei is "without action". It is often expressed by the paradox wei wu wei, meaning "action without action" or "effortless doing". The practice and efficacy of wu wei are fundamental in Taoist thought, most prominently emphasized in Taoism. The goal of wu wei is alignment with Tao, revealing the soft and invisible power within all things. It is believed by Taoists that masters of wu wei can control this invisible potential, the innate yin-action of the Way.

In ancient Taoist texts, wu wei is associated with water through its yielding nature. Water is soft and weak, but it can move earth and carve stone. Taoist philosophy proposes that the universe works harmoniously according to its own ways. When someone exerts his will against the world, he disrupts that harmony. Taoism does not identify man's will as the root problem. Rather, it asserts that man must place his will in harmony with the natural universe.

Pu

Pu is translated "uncarved block", "unhewn log", or "simplicity". It is a metaphor for the state of wu wei (無為) and the principle of jian (儉).[17] It represents a passive state of receptiveness. Pu is a symbol for a state of pure potential and perception without prejudice. In this state, Taoists believe everything is seen as it is, without preconceptions or illusion.

Pu is seen as keeping oneself in the primordial state of tao. It is believed to be the true nature of the mind, unburdened by knowledge or experiences. In the state of pu, there is no right or wrong, beautiful or ugly. There is only pure experience, or awareness, free from learned labels and definitions. It is this state of being that is the goal of following wu wei.

Like, for instance, the ancient Hebrews. Deuteronomy 22: 20-21 "If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you."

“All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal.”- Psalm 119:160

I say this not to be mocking of religion. I was a born again Christian for six years of my life. But in regards to morality, IMHO the God of the Bible is not the being I would look to as a paragon of virture.

For instance, here we have God advocating genocide. 1 Samuel 15:1 "Samuel said to Saul, 'I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. This is what the LORD Almighty says: I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'" Does this sound like the loving God that so many of you worship? Does this sound like a God of Justice? No. There is no squirming your way out of this passage. Either this was a man made directive or a divine judgment.

It is of my opinion that God was made in the image of man, and not the other way around. This is why we can have completely disparate views on "Him".

?

No Christians or Jews currently advocate stoning. Muslims however...

Honestly? Maybe it's just your attitude?

And technically, I'm not a full-blown atheist. I'm probably more of an extreme agnostic. I tend to believe in the ways of the Universe...much like Carl Sagan. But even he began to rethink certain things right before he died...

Deuteronomy 13:6 "If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, 'Let us go and worship other gods' (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God"

"Morals have to remain unchanging."

The morals presented in the OT have changed...because the culture has changed. Thank goodness for that. Your decision to not kill all unbelievers is the correct one. Which puts you at odd with God.

I don't get all the whole "That was the Old Testament. Doesn't count anymore" Does God have some sort of statute of limitations on his behavior? How can you possibly justify killing infants? There is none. It was an unjust act, assuming it actually happened.

What I really want to know is why Anthony Flue changed his mind.

-Shepherd Book.

Jesus dies for human sin. Whether God had second thoughts over His actions...that's not for me to answer.

I see it this way: If somebody tells me a hurricane is on its way, but I have not seen it, I'd probably do something about it. If I didn't, I'd have only myself to blame for my death. My concern is not with judging God. I do have lots of questions, trust me. My concern is that people behave.

Blast...I love these conversations...and now I have to go back to work. ARRRGHH!

If that person took offense that you just didn't understand that they had FAITH that they were going to win the lottery, and further, that you were wrong to disrespect that faith, would that sound like a reasonable argument?

This is what the argument about faith sounds like to everyone else in the world who doesn't share your beliefs. Not just atheists and agnostics, but every human being that believes something other than what you believe. If you're a Christian, do you offer equal respect to Scientologists' beliefs? No, you probably laugh at them. That's because simply calling it faith is a baffling non-sequitur. It doesn't explain anything.

Personally, I think blind, religious faith is simply a kind of indoctrination that hasn't been properly investigated by the individual yet. It's rote behavior, like sleeping on one side of the bed your whole life. It happens every day that someone finally chooses to shine the light of their intellect on their faith, it dissipates the fog, and what's revealed isn't faith, but doubt, and a capacity for reason too long denied. You said that atheists just don't believe that religious people have thought things through. That's not really true, I think that religious people think about it all the time, but there's more to it than just passively considering it, or sensing an oncoming doubt and pulling the covers up over your head to deflect it, yet again. It takes a brave choice, and another kind of faith entirely, a faith in yourself, to see it through and actually investigate that misty, dim corner of your consciousness honestly.

I think it's ridiculous for religious people to take the arrogant, self-righteous position that atheists simply 'don't understand' faith, as if it's some mysterious state of being reserved for a higher life-form. I understand what it is, how it works, and where it comes from, I just don't understand why you have it.

Sagan's beliefs are well documented. He was a lifelong skeptic and he had some pretty amazing and interesting views on god(s) and religion. After his death, his wife noted how he really began to ponder over what lay before him once he passed. (It's not like he saw the Light or anything!) All in all, he was skeptical agnostic which is no real surprise considering the spiritual-like nature of the Cosmos.

Y'see - you can't pass judgement on a system or a believe, because of the despicable acts of its fraternity. Thats exceedingly unfair the to the overwhelming majority of well-behaved and kind-hearted folks who, just as you do, have no tolerance for the terrible things done on their behalf by misguided fools and power-mad lunatics.

Not to be a dick, but I think you're projecting, dude.

As to the absurdity that rigning someone's doorbell is 'arrogant', well i already said it - that notion is entirely absurd. Thats what a doorbell is for. Arrogance would be to open the door and walk right in. Unless you think the Schwann's driver is an arrogant grocer.

As far as engaging in a debate on the New Testament, I don't have too many objections to its depiction of God or laws, excluding the tacit acceptance of slavery, women as property of the husband, and condemnation of homosexuals. I do however have a problem with the idea of hell, see above post.

samsquanch, you in particular, are writing some damn fine posts, if though I disagree. I am a man of faith. Born and raised Catholic. I will not get further into this debate at this time, but will keep reading.

Bishop Sklba believes that “because Scripture is indeed an inspired work of literary art, it is open to a variety of legitimate interpretations, like all types of good literature … as long as they do not contradict or oppose the original meaning of the text itself.” So in reading and interpreting our religion’s sacred text, we must be diligent to do it justice, but we also must be open to the Spirit as She offers us new insights and lessons for our day.

Holy Hell and I seem to agree - and quite many more do as well, that the God we know, is not a vengeful, or wrathful, or spiteful, or angry God to be feared. Those passages, were merely constructed to get peoples attention. They are in DIRECT contradiction to the God that is loving, and generous, and forgiving. When you see such a contradiction - and when the overwhelming preponderance of evidence is for an understanding and forgiving and loving God, not a vengeful one, then you throw out the extreme tales as merely stories told by men to enlighten, but not to impart the true word of God. hat is how you interpret it - in a non-fundamental way.

Terry - You're more than welcome to take issue with the Old Testament's historical accounts of violence war and bloodshed. I see those discussions and just walk away. They're not my cup of tea - I prefer mine a bit sweeter. The single justification and explanation offered for the inclusion of the Old Testament books in the Bible was specific and simple - because nearly all of them contained prophetical details either directly or through parallels, that many middle century scholars believed to be revealed and fulfilled within the texts of the New Testament. Otherwise, it is a fact that within the doctrine of Christianity, nobody will ever reach heaven by reading and believing in the Old Testament - there is no dogmatic content there whatsoever. Its included because it contains real historical events that lend a gravitas to the scripture. It references ancient cultures that we know through science and exploration to be real cultures. It mentions great cities whose ruins stand exposed to this day. So in the Old Testament, when it is commanded that someone should be killed for stealing an ox, that does not mean Christians today living in Missouri are on the constant prowl for cattle bandits, and vow to kill them because God said so. Those constitutionals within the Old Testament were governmental procedures for a very old and very gone religious society. Again, the only reason these laws are included is because many books in the New Testament refer to them. They speak of the writings of Moses and the prophets, so it was deemed important to offer those very writings for reference. So when Jesus is reported to be quoting from the writings of Jeremiah, we can flip back to those writings and see what he was talking about. Incidentally, there are things Jeremiah said that you can flip forward to, and check out in the New Testament. Anyway, thats why I insist on sticking to discussion of Christian themes within the New Testament because the Old Testament is simply reference material - it doesn't get to the actual heart of the discussion.

As to the other issues you specified (and others did as well), there is a bit of non-contextual referencing going on. There is nothing in the Bible that offers tacit approval to enslave women. There is, however, a specific declaration that in matters of familial debate, it is the husband who has the final authority. This is because when it comes time for his judgement, he will be responsible for that family. If their children fall into drugs or crime, it is not the mother who stands accountable - it is the father alone who bears that examination. It would only be fair that if he is to be held in judgement for the actions and results of his family, that he be the one that leads it. It is strictly a political appointment of authority. Nothing more. In fact, the scripture follows up this verse with very specific cautions against husbands who would wield this authority improperly - and very specific judgements for those that do. Husbands are to be in charge, but they are to always treat their wives with great respect. As a rule, slaves are not very well respected by their owners.

Homosexuality - its specifically identified as an abomination against the flesh. In modern vernacular, its "against nature" and I have yet to hear a compelling counter to that. All living beings are designed to reproduce offspring with a very intricate but specific biological congress. unless you want to discuss protozoa or other anamorphic goo bubbles than simply anaphase themselves into hundreds of clones. Not sure whether God passes judgement on them - I tend to think we're referring to humans alone within the scope of Biblical morality. Anyway, its identified as a bad habit. A sin. The funny thing about sins in the Bible is that it makes no distinctions. There are no 'seven layers of hell' or 'special hell for child molesters or people who talk in movies' (and that there is the 2nd Shepherd Book quote in this talkback. epic webpage right now.) Sin is sin is sin.

the disconnect is when people transfer God's dissaproval to Sin onto the actual sinners. God does not, contrary to that lunatic family protesting soldier funerals, a 'fag hater.' God does not hate sinners because the funny thing about sinners - thats sort of all of us, really. Its like when my 3 year old (uh oh a Moriarty moment here) draws on the tv with crayons. Boy do I hate having to wash crayon off my LCD. That does not however, mean that I hate my daughter. She's my most treasured thing ever. But even still, I really hate this habit of coloring on the TV with crayons. Thats God's relationship with homosexuals. They're not some special breed of bad bad sinners. He just has a problem with their lifestyle. I do too. Then again, I have a problem with all kinds of things people around me do - but it doesn't mean i hate them. Im not a real big fan of Bill Clinton (shock! surprise!) but if I saw him on the side of the road fixing a flat, I'd still pull over and offer to help, maybe share a bottled water. In my opinion, he's pretty despicable (and I can be wrong about that. its okay), but thats not a valid reason for me to go around hating him. In fact, the Bible cautions Christians not to hate anyone. Because you know what that would be?

rather arrogant if you ask me.

I like this thread. so far.

However, some people take this idea and extend it into the realm of judgement. They use this concept to explain that hell and 'eternal damnation' are simply scare tactics to make you sit up and listen.

I disagree wholeheartedly. There are grave and eternal consequences involved here, and yes they are explained in detail to scare you - the reason they should scare you is because they are quite real.

(Im not speaking authoritatively here or anywhere in this thread - please interpret my comments as an expression of my own conclusions and beliefs, and not an insistence that anyone else immediately adhere to them.)

Try this out: Make a concerted effort of will to honestly believe that you are 18 feet tall. You're so big you can't get out the door. You have to pull up your knees because the room your in is like a cardboard box, its so small.

Did it work? I didn't think so.

So what does this mean? Well, first of all, outside of total brainwashing, stockholm syndrome, indoctrination, etc, you're probably going to believe what you believe for the rest of your life. This isn't a guarantee, a broken clock is correct twice a day, and previously atheist people have found Jesus and religious people have lost their faith, but generally speaking, all the proselytizing and/or rational arguments aren't going to make much of a difference. we should all just go bowling instead.

So when people come to your door and ring your doorbell, sure some of them are only intrested in a few dollars for a copy of their newsletter - but generally speaking from a bird's eye view, its there because to them, you're on a sinking boat and they've got a basket on a tether to a rescue chopper. They just want you to abandon ship and swim to the basket. Its not an arrogance. To them, its a simple rescue mission. It can come at inopportune times of your day, and I can respect that completely - which is why I and my church do not ring doorbells. Instead, we wait for someone to ask "hey my ship is taking on water - seen any helicopters?" so we can say, "actually..." and point up at the sky. Metaphorically, of course but you get the point. As much as it annoys you, and interrupts your marathon COD 4 session on XBox Live to answer that ringing doorbell, at least try to remember that for them, its a rescue mission, and try to appreciate the motivation behind the annoyance.

cold calling to door bells is a horrible way to sell magazine subscriptions, amirite? How more so to sell eternal salvation? I sure wish churches would just find a better way.

As far as the Old Testament, I don't think you are being a little flippant as per its use in the life of a Christian. You don't need it for salvation, but there is a lot of wisdom one could gleam from it regarding the nature of God, his relationship to man, the Law, the history of the Hebrews, etc. Also, I thought the reason it was included in the Bible was because it was believed to be the inspired Word of God, not just for its prophecies. The very nature of men choosing what is inspired by God seems counterintuitive but that is a separate issue.

I understand that Christians don't apply those laws to their society anymore. But if you believe the Bible to be the truth of God, then one would have to at least accept that this atrocities happened and God ordered them and they were justified.

I didn't mean to say enslavement of woman. I mean tacit approval of slavery, as in, none of the NT writers or Jesus condemned slavery.

As far as contextual criticism for women's role in the family, Ephesians 5:22 "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord." That's a pretty powerful statement. I don't think wives should submit to their husbands like they would to God. But that's my opinion.

As far as homosexuality, I object to the notion that it is a sin at all. It should go without saying that one should not hate homosexuals. But it is detesting to the Lord, we are told to hate sins (but not the sinners, I know I know) and some people are repressed self hating gays themselves so it makes sense to me.

Personally, I have a complicated theory on how this has become a natural thing, through evolution, which I sort of touched on in my long-ass post yesterday, but it's the last thing anyone should judge anyone else on. I think it's a difference in us akin to preferring a flavor of ice cream. Obviously, it's a much more profound component of our natures, whether or not you believe in God, or Gods, or a 'First Cause', or whatever, or that you don't at all, but my point is that whether or not you find it natural to believe isn't any more a marker of one's character than ice cream preference.

I do believe that There is such a thing as indoctrination, and that religion specifically is a tribal aspect, but once again, the nugget of nature is there first, indoctrination comes later. I was indoctrinated as a Catholic, but my nature didn't allow for me to believe. Other people are raised atheist, and find their way to belief on their own, because it's in their nature.

That's the nutshell.

I think there are varied psychological responses to the idea of religion and its acceptance or rejection. I may have become a Christian out of a sense of guilt for some of my past behavior mixed in with a fear of death. I became an agnostic for intellectual reasons and because I had come to terms with my reasons for joining. I'm not sure if I was wired at birth to become one or the other.

My faith is not contingent of someone elses belief or lack of belief.

Webster's 1828 Dictionary

Antichrist.

In place of Christ...

So i have time enough for anyone who is really interested in answers. If someone is interested in a fight, an argument, or just has their minds made up - well, I can make some time, but its not like I put my full effort into that. know what i mean?

now given that homosexuality is generally NOT between one man and one woman, it falls under extra-marital sex, which I believe to be a sin. Sure sure scripture calls out homosexuality in some very specific ways, but for me - I just toss it in the extra-marital sex bin and clap the dust from my hands of the whole debate.

I'm sitting on a park bench, it's a nice day and I'm just enjoying my MP3s and a cold Frappucino.

You walk up to me and tell me I'm on a sinking ship and you're here to rescue me with your chopper, and unless I get on your chopper, you will find someone else to rescue.

I look at you and think that this park is filled with fucking nutbags and look around for the nearest police officer.

But I dont offer that same quarter to homosexuality. The jury is still out as to how or why people are homosexuals, and if our smartest doctors haven't figured it out, Im certainly in no position to offer a solution - but for me, the cause and effect of it is of no consequence. It is deemed wrong, and Im okay believing that. I also think that voting for Democrats is wrong, or the Designated Hitter - in all cases, its not something I agree with, but I dont go around throwing stones at Harold Reynolds.

(for our non-USA readers, he's a former baseballer whose primary role was Designated Hitter for teams whose pitchers do not have to bat).

When --I-- walk up to you, I say, "wow sure is a nice day today." you say, "yeah. beats last weeks rain." I say, "yep. well, God Bless." and turn to walk. You say "psshhh I dont believe in God." I say, "really. want to discuss it?" "nope" "well okay then. enjoy the coffee." and im gone.

how unabashedly arrogant of me.

yeah Mormons, Im talking to you.

"Its about believing in something, and letting that belief be real enough to change your life. its about faith. You dont fix faith, River. Faith Fixes you."

-Shepherd Book.

Feel free to look up more quotes.

You seem hellbent on linking skepticism with atheism as if it were an automatic pairing.

Also, I never said there was spirtuality in his work COSMOS. I said there was a spiritual-like quality to the Cosmos = Universe. BIG DISTINCTION. And if you want to substitute "spiritual" with "sense of wonder", that's fine with me.

Second, evil men believe in where there is a will there is a way, and they are willing to sell their souls for their God money. They will employ evil to gain money.

While most people are quite aware of these last two connections, a third may likely have escaped their attention. Thirdly, the principle group of men who cranked up International Banking were Satanists from the beginning.

The Rothschilds in fact over time were entrusted with the bulk of the Vatican's wealth.

And that's Twice in 2 days you've tried to be clever and got the book title wrong. How fucking poorly educated, moronic, and utterly pretentious are you?

"An agnostic is somebody who doesn't believe in something until there is evidence for it, so I'm agnostic."

Not hard.

Jacob Schiff grew up in the house that the Rothschild's had at 148 Judengasse, Frankfurt. Jacob Schiff came to the United States with Rothschild capital and took over control of a small jewish banking concern founded by two Cincinnati dry goods merchants Abraham Kuhn and Solomon Loeb. He even married Soloman's daughter. In 1885, Loeb retired, and Schiff ran the Kuhn, Loeb Co. for the Rothschilds until 1920 when he died.17 During Russell's and Brigham Young's day, Lord Rothschild was considered the "lay leader of world Jewry."18

"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife..." 1st Timothy 3:2

"If any [an elder] be blameless, the husband of one wife"... Titus 1:6

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; FORBIDDING TO MARRY... 1 Timothy 4:1, 3

"My mother told me I would have to see the priest at the church in order to get my confirmation lessons to understand it more fully. I was to go each Saturday morning to see him. However, the subject of Confirmation I did not learn. This priest was sexually molesting me. I was shocked because I had never had anything like this happen before. I was scared. Since good Catholics were supposed to obey their priests, for they are in higher authority, I submitted though I was frightened. Each Saturday I had to go face this priest and didn't dare tell a soul what was happening. This lasted for about six to seven weeks."

Sandy, a former nun

Perhaps these basic definitions will help you understand the difference between an atheist and agnostic:

a·the·ist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

ag·nos·tic: a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

Do you understand this distinction?

Agnosticism isn't a sweeping generalized philosophy, with an equal meaning for every idea. One can be agnostic about whether or not it will rain, but absolutely sure it's not going to snow.

Sagan was an agnostic when it came to the idea that there may have been a 'first cause' to the Universe, a purpose, or perhaps an intelligence that set things in motion, and then left it to its own devices. In this way, the absolute MOST you can ascribe to him is that he was a reluctant Deist, as many agnostics tend to be, but in NO WAY did he entertain the idea for five seconds in any of the various sky-god tribalistic mythologies. In that way, when it came to Jesus, or Mohammad, or Moses, or Zeus, or Ares, or Thor, he was certainly, unequivocally, and staunchly ATHEIST. Please, don't muddy the waters.

Lot's of great stuff has been said on both sides and speaking as an atheist, I'd like to apologize for the ones who may have walked up to you in the parking lot and called you a simple-minded fool because of the religious fish on your bumper.

I only find two things troubling.

1) I understand that atheists are largely in the minority but I don't have a problem voting for someone who says they privately consult with God to make some tough decisions, I don't understand why someone of faith wouldn't be willing to vote for me simply because I choose not to believe in a higher power. As someone said above, an atheist can run from public office but they will never be elected and let's be honest, if a candidate is going to be hounded because they don't wear a flag pin on their lapel, imagine the grief they'll take for not believing in God.

I find it terribly depressing that someone of faith would probably choose a candidate of faith even if they shared very opposing views instead of me even if we saw eye to eye on every issue. That lack of tolerance is disconcerting. To put a belief in God over all the domestic and foreign issues doesn't seem logical to me.

2) What Arcadian said above: "But I don't offer that same quarter to homosexuality. The jury is still out as to how or why people are homosexuals, and if our smartest doctors haven't figured it out, I'm certainly in no position to offer a solution - but for me, the cause and effect of it is of no consequence. It is deemed wrong, and I'm okay believing that." That really seems ignorant to me. It's deemed wrong so I'll blindly go along with it? Doctors haven't figured it out? What's there to figure out? Either you're born gay or you're born straight. It's not a choice. Why can't we get past this?

People who cling to antiquated notions such as "sex outside of marriage is a sin" are a real hazard to progressing as a species. In order for marriage to occur, two people need at the very least someone who was ordained by a church, so to say that a couple who was "married" by a guy in an Elvis costume at the window of a drive-thru wedding chapel in Las Vegas at 4 in the morning is more entitled to have sex than an unmarried couple who has been living together for 10 years just doesn't add up.

And the amount of Americans who believe gay marriage should not be allowed is frightening. I am a tad insulted by people who shake their finger at atheists and accuse them of being arrogant and condescending while at the same time telling a gay couple that they cannot have the same social privileges as straight couples because it's an affront to nature. Once again, it just doesn't add up and it's hypocritical.

Besides, marriage is sacred my foot. The philandering shenanigans going on in politicians sex lives and the aforementioned chapels in places like Las Vegas prove that as a society we don't take marriage seriously, which is why are divorce rate is close to 50%.

Carry on.

I'm a stone-cold atheist, but, like I've described in many of my posts above, I try not to be a prick. I don't make fun of anyone else's beliefs, I seek to understand where the need for religion comes from without ascribing myself any superior status for lacking this all-too common mammalian habit. And, It pleases me to no end to meet people of faith who can have fascinating, nuanced, and profound conversations about the wonder of the universe and life and politics and art and everything else under the sun without trying to convert me. I have a feeling that eventually, maybe in a thousand years, the whole 'God' discussion will simply blend into a kind of semantic background noise, and what one person calls "God", someone else will call "Wonder" and we'll all be able to get along without too many panties being bunched.

I guess my point is that morals, ethics, values and basic goodness are not the sole province of the religious. Judge someone on what they do, not on what they say they believe.

Jefferson in Louisiana who had $90,000 in bribe money stuffed in his refrigerator. Or Ted Stevens from Alaska who accepted "gifts" without reporting them. Clinton, Domenici, Gingrich, Spitzer, Vitter, Condit, Siegelman, Nixon, Traficant. The list of corrupt politicians, on both sides, goes on and on. So who were these scumbags consulting with when they took kickbacks, broke the law, lied to the public and put greed ahead of American interests?

My point is, we've given "men of faith" a chance 100% of the time and 95% of the time they end up screwing us over by not really looking out for us. So honestly, how much worse could an atheist be?

samsquanch, Fred thinks you are a very good person. And Fred would vote for you. But Fred is only one Fred.

A Jewish academic has shocked Italy by claiming Jews murdered Christians for their blood in the Middle Ages so it could be used in rituals.

The details were revealed in the Italian newspaper, the Corriere della Sera, which published extracts of the book, Easter of Blood by Professor Ariel Toaff.

The claims were denied by leading Jewish figures including his father Elio, once the chief Rabbi of Rome.

In the book, Prof Toaff alleges the ritual killing was carried out by members of a fundamentalist group in reaction to the persecution of Jews.

The book describes the mutilation and crucifixion of a two-year-old boy to recreate Christ’s execution at Pesach, the Jewish Easter. The festival marks the fleeing of the Jews from Egypt and Prof Toaff says Christian blood was used for "magic and therapeutic practices".

In some cases the blood was mixed with dough to make azzimo, unleavened bread, eaten at Pesach. He says the acts took place in around the city of Trento in modern northern Italy, between the 11th and 14th centuries.

Prof Toaff based his book on confessions he says came from Jews captured and tried for the practice. He said several were executed after confessing to the crucifixion of Christian children.

Italy’s senior rabbis, including Elio Toaff, issued a joint statement condemning the book. "There has never existed in Jewish tradition any permission or custom for using human blood for ritual purposes. Such a practice is considered with horror.

"It is absolutely improper to use centuries old statements, extracted under torture, to formulate singular and aberrant historical theses. The only blood shed in these stories is that of many innocent Jews."

Prof Toaff, who teaches mediaeval and Renaissance history at Bar Ilan University in Jerusalem, said the reaction was a "disgrace" as they had not read the book, which has yet to be published.

He emphasised the practice was confined to "a small group of fundamentalists."

He added that attacking the whole of Judaism would be similar to blaming Islam for the acts of extremist Muslims. "They had suffered from the trauma of mass suicides. [sic] It was both a kind of revenge and a way, for them, of seeking redemption."

Surreal. Her family should've been brought to Gitmo and interrogated to find out who those dead babies were. WTF?!?!!!!!!!!!!