Ahhh.....the thing this qanon conspiracy nut was caught on hot mike saying that he's embarrassed of was saying that the far right Trump militia that tried to kidnap and murder the governor, even after some plead guilty, were getting a "bad rap"...meaning they shouldn't be prosecuted because they only tried to kidnap and murder a Democrat.

He’s not embarrassed of this stupid lie about Republicans “staging” a fake coup for Pelosi and Schumer to use to convict Trump, when asked he stood by it and refuses to retract or apologize for it.

This is your source for unbiased information?! No wonder you believe such idiotic nonsense.

I guess it's fine if leftists kidnap and murder republican governors and Senate majorities then? Green light.

🤦‍♂️

A few things:

A) You should read this article about American cheese:

https://www.seriouseats.com/2016/07/whats-really-in-american-cheese.html

It's not gourmet, but it gets a bad rap -- it's easily the best type of cheese for a certain type of cheeseburger.

B) Louis Lunch broils their burgers in a custom upright broiler they've been using since day one. Their burgers definitely aren't steamed.

C) Pressing burgers during cooking is a no-no, but pressing the beef onto the griddle before it starts cooking creates a magical layer of crust on the beef that you can't get through any other method.

Porn always gets a bad rap for things that just aren't true about it. Just, holy shit the vastness and variety of porn!

For Sheppard-Did say that there are exceptions to the rule of the 'bad cops' encountered, found many in California to be gentlemen and professionals, courteous, civil, and humane, and still find a few in Texas as well but….Texas is another beast and I let my guard down in the situation described-THESE facts however, do not annihilate the argument that all police are felons because if you stay in the game long enough in the employ of any jurisdiction in the country, you will as a police officer commit an act that is patently felonious, will witness a felony and say or do nothing to righteously call-it-out to either a superior or internal affairs, OR, as is the case with extant procedure I might add to my argument (which you took so personally through affiliation and family, and with as much rage and emotion as myself, -my own failing) be sanctioned to commit acts deemed felonious were they committed by the general public, BY THE BROKEN SYSTEM.

You took it personally to defend your delusion and your family's ties to law enforcement, or simply can't follow the simple argument in which I clarified the facts simply, which is relatively bulletproof.

Your cited examples, and I apologize, I am NOT responsible for your emotional state or that of anyone else by my own, of your own family's humanitarian efforts in the local community, could possibly represent their own guilt or embarrassment of having taken part in such generalized enforcement of the will of the state, "just doing their JOBS" in their later years.

They see shit every day, and it takes a special person not to become the shit they see and I'll give you that-Corrupt systems corrupt other systems. I equate these humanitarian efforts on the part of cops to MAKE UP FOR the bad rap of the felonious activities they witnessed and remained silent on.

Law enforcement is become now simply big-business designed to control humans like cattle, and keep them in-line so that they will feed the machine and perpetuate itself....To create a criminal class and to insure in perpetuity the systems that feed upon the incubators of criminals-in-formation, in the ever-growing prison industry and the shit-heal companies that cater to the systems that make-up the vile web of law enforcement run-amok in the USA.

Sorry if I wrinkled yer sack and brought you to that place of rage and control that ALL police and the children of police hold so dear, it's called faulty imprinting and it's systemic in not only the sick fraternal order of police but in ALL of the dysfunctional society of America.

I do know what police are and they are simply doing what they were programmed to do. My fuck-up was letting my guard down to catch my toe in the meat-grinder of that sick system.Believe me,it will not happen again, as I intend to stroke the dicks of every sheit cop I see in the future, and make their egos feel all warm and fucking fuzzy, with a view to self-preservation.

ALL COPS ARE FELONS

Mental health issues.

I hate seeing the pitbulls get such a bad rap, I have a pit/golden retriever mix and I've known close to 10 pitbulls. ALL were loving, caring, gentle and friendly with other people and dogs. While there are many breeds that stem from fighting dogs including the pitbull. It's not the breed, it's the owners.

We have a ban in my city so my pit mix is labeled as a golden mix everywhere we go (vets idea)

>> ^chingalera:

hey stormsinger, ain't sayin' that all manner of evil don't come form Texas-Yer preachin' to a choir larger than you realize...sayin' that the bad rap is superseded by the overall condition of the machine and the blame to be placed on "this or that" is produced like a carnival freakshow.
Apolitical and residing currently in Texas. HOME, of a big fucking ICON I grew up with that's overlooking my first midway experience as a 6-year-old, where I saw the Human Pin Cousin and the fucking RUBBER MAN!! ....S'BIG TEX, BITCH!!!
FuuuuuCK! AND, yer politics!
and thank you for calling me on my rant, ...I needed that!

No problem! I'm sure you would (and sooner or later will) do the same for me.


I only hope I take it as well as you have.

hey stormsinger, ain't sayin' that all manner of evil don't come form Texas-Yer preachin' to a choir larger than you realize...sayin' that the bad rap is superseded by the overall condition of the machine and the blame to be placed on "this or that" is produced like a carnival freakshow.

Apolitical and residing currently in Texas. HOME, of a big fucking ICON I grew up with that's overlooking my first midway experience as a 6-year-old, where I saw the Human Pin Cousin and the fucking RUBBER MAN!! ....S'BIG TEX, BITCH!!!

FuuuuuCK! AND, yer politics!

and thank you for calling me on my rant, ...I needed that!

>> ^hpqp:

@kceaton1
I am confused. What you provide is Hitchens making a very good point as to why superstitious beliefs (organised/codified in religion) are bad, and why he thus deems himself an antitheist (as I see myself, btw). What I asked for (in an almost rhetorical way, as I doubt such a thing exists) is the "militant" atheists/antitheists that are like the WBC, the ones that so-called "give us a bad rap".


Ah, I see what you want. Let me try to find one. I guess I should tone it down a tad as they aren't nearly as acidic as the Westboro Baptists, but to very religious people I imagine they are the worst people in the world. I believe my example of an atheist claiming all religions are evil is from Hitchins as well. He does of course try to explain why this is a truthful statement. Depending on how you view things this may be a fairly boisterous claim or merely a rational one. If you find it rational then you are most definitely an anti-theist to some degree, no matter what you think.

edit-

I think I will end it here actually. I guess I will change the original wording of militant to something else and make sure that it is known that the current crop of ant-theism is directly aimed at religion and typically Christianity. In the eyes of those religious they may seem like what I say due to the "seemingly undue" ferocity in which the words may be said, or the content a book might have--especially, to those that have spent their lives NOT bible thumping or preaching to the cameras. Books like "The God Delusion" or lesser ones that don't deal with the topic directly, but have the same effect like "Everything You Know About God Is Wrong" can have this effect.

So I will state that I know of this "movement" and it seems non-threatening to me, but I am not the target. So I have to view it through my very old religious goggles; with this I know it will be like shaking a beehive. So forgive my partly unfair adjective assignment and the unfair equality accusation of the Westboro Baptists to anti-theists.

@kceaton1

I wholly agree that I detest these once atheists that have literally taken what is normally a balanced "naught" position as to God(s) existence barring evidence and instead these anti-theists ditch that stance and deem that not only is all religion a wash, but any God is as well. They're very "militant" in nature and seem to draw in those that are less secure about their own opinions; kind of like the Westboro Baptists. Unfortunately, they are also very pro-active, boisterous, and vitriolic in nature--worse of all they call themselves atheists still, giving the rest of us a bad rap.

And they're everywhere. The only place that I can go and say anything about Christianity without being ridiculed is a Christian forum. This goes from the obvious places like atheist forums, to a place like this, to even the comments section on CNN.com. Antitheists seem to outnumber thoughtful atheists at least 100-1.

Some of them though are just plain tired of the charades they have had to play with men they worked with, people they once respected--but, those same people might as well put their workmate, friend, and neighbors into brutal conditions for a simple principle held: atheism. It's happened before, not as ruthless as it may have been in the earlier centuries, but black listing someone in a community can happen. I've seen it happen innumerable times first hand! I can't blame some for their outrage and pointed damnation they hold for others; it was created by those that may complain that the volume and acidity of their words may be too strong--or too true.

Some have been mistreated, and some are just on the hate bandwagon because they are angry, insecure people who scapegoat religion for the evil in the world. Much like an anarchist blames all the evil in the world on governments.

Of course religion has it's share of idiots as well. They are almost always the fundamentalists, like the Westboro clan. Papa (George H. W.) Bush once said that atheists should have no rights in the U.S.--if he had his way--they would not be citizens nor would they be patriots. Because, this is a nation "under God"--atleast after that was added. Maybe Papa Bush didn't know that historical part. Religion also has a grand stand in politics and the media. That is yet another thing that must be remembered is that when an anti-theist does speak it will outrage the religious; but, atheists, anti-theists (even Jews, Muslims, Hindu, Buddhism, etc...), endure the endless exposure and should be expected to remain quiet... Fox News is the epitome of which I speak as it is nothing more than a pulpit for the rich, white, Christian, American, white collar worker.

Stupidity, of course, is not exclusive to any particular group of people, but is common to all of them.

But, there is one more consideration that HAS to be mentioned. As this point gets me to go after religious people all the time. If this makes me anti-theist, because I voiced a concern over what is being said--then anti-theism is far more wide-spread and has NOTHING to do with atheism. I do think this may be a common misconception from just my general experiences on the messageboards, here and elsewhere.

The problem is: Science!

This is especially true for all of the fundamental type religions. They all have a huge laundry list of minor science flaws to HUGE science flaws. Fundamentalism Christianity in the U.S. tends to take the lead in this war of fact versus opinion. There are plenty of fully qualified scientists out there that are religious, but ones that tend to go against the full body of evidence and scientific community to prove a religious claim tend to be "not fully qualified". They tend to use full scientific data and factual evidence to create a new theor...I mean hypothesis (many will try to use "theory", but their reason for their arrival at the new understanding tends to have no basis) and inject a very large amount of opinion, sprinkled with some facts. One such example is the red-shift video provided above by @shinyblurry .

The video I posted does have a basis, the phenomena was legitimately observed:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606294

Obviously it isn't conclusive, but it definitely has merit and should be explored rather than dismissed. I would really like to know the difference between something like this and the pure speculation accepted as fact in big bang cosmology, such as the existence of dark matter and dark energy. They are little more than fudge factors, as well as cosmic inflation, to account for the glaring holes that don't fit observation. That isn't science, but you excuse it because..?

Science can become a VERY heated area of topic when it comes to religion. This begins when a religion: tries to debunk a theory or a part of it, to commandeer a theory and direct a new conclusion to fit an already preconceived destination which has not been peer-reviewed or tested, repeating scientific theories in religious pamphlets or media while purposefully undermining the theory by not presenting in full and correct context or actually printing falsehoods, lying about the nature of scientific testing, repetitiously incorrectly stating current stances on various theories (like radio-carbon dating, etc...), attempts by any churches through the state to eliminate the teaching of branches of science--especially ones that have been tested so much that have attained the rank of THEORY (Evolution, etc...), again the use of lying in media against science--this has reached every facet of media-large and small.

Here's the problem with the so called theory of evolution. What Darwin observed was microevolution, not macroevolution. He observed that species will adapt to their environments. That is scientific fact, and a great discovery. What he did from there is speculate that because species adapt to their environments, that those adaptations would lead to new species, and therefore, that all life has a common ancestor. Since it wasn't something that could be observed, what was supposed to prove his theory would be evidence from the fossil record. There was only one problem with that:

innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ..why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?

Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Charles Darwin
Origin of the Species

The total lack of transitional fossils was a complete embarrassment to Darwin. The excuse made was that because the record was so poor, more time was needed to unearth the fossils. Here we are 150 years later, and those transitional forms have failed to materialize. The fossil record is composed mainly of gaps. It also defies all the predictions of gradualism. All the major body types appeared suddenly in the Cambrian explosion without any discernable evolutionary history, and they appeared highly diversified. All the major phyla, classes, orders etc were there at the beginning. Species appear suddenly in stasis and leave just as suddenly. Macroevolution is not science, it has never been observed nor can it be tested. It is a just-so story which does not fit observation.

Christians don't have a problem with science, they have a problem with what isn't science. Macroevolution was a giant leap made by Darwin for which there was no evidence, and the fossil record does not match the predictions of the theory. Because of this, evolutionists have moved away from the fossil record and have used other lines of evidences to prove macroevolution, like common genetics in our DNA. The problem with that is, common genetics also indicates a common designer, and is better indicated by it actually, because of the mosaic pattern we observe in the genome.

I'm sure there are more. History has been a great use to show us what religion WILL do to science, even though all that is being shown is the truth. It truly is a dangerous weapon. If you can't except truth what hope do we have for you. Yes you can be a good person, but somehow you're flawed, unable to except reality.

Historically the church supported scientific inquiry. Science got its start in Christian Europe, and many of the greatest scientists were devout Christians.

When I was a believer (no matter what @shinyblurry says I was; I was Mormon and shiny seems to believe that his religious path is of course a T3 hard-line; were as Mormons just get the basic 56k dial-up...) I FELT the presence of God, or more accurately The Holy Ghost. I had no problem believing in everything science told me when I was religious. I knew it was the truth and I knew that God would not want me to ignore the grand insights into the workings of his masterpiece. I could feel in my soul, the first year I had physics, that something profound had just happened. I had found something I had been searching for my whole life. I felt connected to everything. I began to dismiss those that were religious around me and disliked evolution--to me evolution was so simple and yet such a wondrous way to create the most complex of things from literally the simplest. A literal masterpiece. So I do know that some can believe all that science says, but it's very hard in Christianity.

There are two kingdoms in this world, the kingdom of darkness and the Kingdom of Heaven, and they are both supernatural kingdoms. You can get a supernatural experience in a false religion, but it is just a corrupt copy of the real thing. Were you feeling a burning sensation in your chest? What you were feeling wasn't the Holy Spirit, or the presence of God, but the false spirit that pervades the mormon church. The presence of God is something that goes beyond feelings and sensations. This is how people get duped into false religions, because they get a spiritual experience from a false spirit.

I grew up secular, and when I became a Christian I was more than willing to accept the conclusions of science. I had believed them all my life because they had been taught to me as factual. I was even willing to intergrate them into my faith. It was only after investigating these things that I found, to my shock, that there wasn't any actual evidence for these things, and that they were neither testable or observerd. I changed my mind based on my investigation of the facts and not because of any religious duty. I would still believe it if I thought there was convincing evidence, but it isn't there.

Since you're scientifically minded, let me give you a challenge. You appear to be quite confident that evolution is proven true, so if that is the case, see if you can refute the arguments in this book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0890510628/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=

So I hope I made a point with this. Anti-theism comes from quite a few directions. The most usual and common sight is that you'll see between someone defending scientific theories, while the less common will be those that have been directly burned by the religious community they most likely once belonged to. The last is of course what was brought up in earlier posts: atheists who turn into anti-theists. They tend to be the kind that will assert that religion is evil no matter how small or insignificant it may play a role in someones life.

It's because they have no idea how much of western civilization is built upon Christian principles and philosophy. What they need to do is educate themselves:

http://www.amazon.com/Book-that-Made-Your-World/dp/1595553223

In the end most atheists boil down to this:

Stephen speaking to a religious friend...
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

~Stephen Roberts

@kceaton1

I am confused. What you provide is Hitchens making a very good point as to why superstitious beliefs (organised/codified in religion) are bad, and why he thus deems himself an antitheist (as I see myself, btw). What I asked for (in an almost rhetorical way, as I doubt such a thing exists) is the "militant" atheists/antitheists that are like the WBC, the ones that so-called "give us a bad rap".

>> ^hpqp:

I wholly agree that I detest these once atheists that have literally taken what is normally a balanced "naught" position as to God(s) existence barring evidence and instead these anti-theists ditch that stance and deem that not only is all religion a wash, but any God is as well. They're very "militant" in nature and seem to draw in those that are less secure about their own opinions; kind of like the Westboro Baptists. Unfortunately, they are also very pro-active, boisterous, and vitriolic in nature--worse of all they call themselves atheists still, giving the rest of us a bad rap.
Care to give some examples?



This is from our dear atheist, Christopher Hitchins. (I was fairly sure Hitchins was like this, but i couldn't remember specific points like you said; well i found a much better source for the matter: a small letter by him over this exact matter).

Christopher Hitchins little note (this drew some fire too it looks like when it came out):

------
You seem to have guessed, from some remarks I have already made in passing, that I am not a religious believer. In order to be absolutely honest, I should not leave you with the impression that I am part of the generalized agnosticism of our culture. I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful. Reviewing the false claims of religion I do not wish, as some sentimental agnostics affect to wish, that they were true. I do not envy believers their faith. I am relieved to think that the whole story is a sinister fairy tale; life would be miserable if what the faithful affirmed was actually the case.

Why do I say that? Well, there may be people who wish to live their lives under a cradle-to-grave divine supervision; a permanent surveillance and [around the clock] monitoring [a celestial North Korea]. But I cannot [personally] imagine anything more horrible or grotesque. It would be worse, in a way, if the supervision was benign...

I think that this conviction does bear on the mental and moral resources that are necessary if one hopes to live [on the contrary, if one hopes to live in dissent or if one hopes to live] "as if" one were free. In a much-quoted reflection on America's original sin [of slavery], Thomas Jefferson said, "I tremble for my country when I remember that god is just." However, if there really was a god and he really was just, then there would be little enough for believers to tremble about; it would be a consolation that infinitely outweighed any imaginable earthly care.

I have met many brave men and women, morally superior to myself, whose courage in adversity derives from their faith. But whenever they have chosen to speak or write about it, I find myself appalled by the instant decline of their intellectual and moral standards. They want god on their side and they believe they are doing his work - what is this, even at it's very best, but an extreme form of solipsism? [In other words "don't mind me I'm just doing god's work, I'm very modest." A poor syllogism, or a very humble humility, is defined by them.] They proceed from conclusion to evidence; our greatest resource is the mind, and the mind is not well-trained by being taught to assume what has to be proved.

This arrogance and illogic is inseparable even from the meekest and most altruistic religious affirmations. A true believer must believe that he or she is here for a purpose and is an object of real interest to a Supreme Being; he or she must also claim to have at least an inkling of what that Supreme Being desires. I have been called arrogant myself in my time, and hope to earn the title again, but to claim that I am privy to the secrets of the universe and its creator - that's beyond my conceit. I therefore have no choice but to find something suspect even in the humblest believer, let alone in the great law-givers and edict-makers of whose "flock" (and what a revealing word that is) they form a part.
------------------------
It might sound provincial and (oh dear) Eurocentric to say this, but not even those of us who had taken the gloomiest view of the arms race and the Cold War had ever expected to see a full-dress reprise, in Europe, of internment camps, the mass murder of civilians, the reinstitution of torture and rape and deportation as acts of policy. This was the sort of thing we had read about from six decades before; some of us (including myself) had met and got to know some survivors of that period. And of course, in a recess of our minds we had played the imaginary game: what would I do about the knock on the door; how would I react if the neighbors were being marched off to the station?

That tired analogy turned out to be uncomfortably useful, because when all this ghastliness did get under way again, the political class in Europe and America behaved for the most part with the same wretched combination of complacency and complicity that it had exhibited when Fascism first came to call.
------

Here is one example. I do know that there are also a few more writers out there that are self-described, some not, ant-theists. Hopefully, this is the exact kind of thing you are looking for @hpqp . I'm just not terribly sure their ferocity over this right now is the right call. But, as I point out it certainly SHOULD be expected as many people in religion have done nothing, but callously call these once only atheists the living devil, the worst people alive, plus every demonic curse that can be called upon a person. Then they went further and threatened them with bodily harm; from individual members to actual leaders amongst these communities. Your house is vandalized and disgraced, your telephones ring non-stop to the rhythm of a religious battle hymn. These are things you wouldn't expect from good natured, Christ loving, religious people. I'm sure @shinyblurry will make sure it's known that these people are not Christians (and I would agree to an extent)--the problem with using this to literally sweep the whole problem under the carpet is that there is NO lesson learned. No one is harassed by the police as they should be or the media--it becomes a living nightmare to fight these people. Soon all you have left is to move out of town. But, in Christopher Hitchins example he is simply too famous to escape this.

I wholly agree that I detest these once atheists that have literally taken what is normally a balanced "naught" position as to God(s) existence barring evidence and instead these anti-theists ditch that stance and deem that not only is all religion a wash, but any God is as well. They're very "militant" in nature and seem to draw in those that are less secure about their own opinions; kind of like the Westboro Baptists. Unfortunately, they are also very pro-active, boisterous, and vitriolic in nature--worse of all they call themselves atheists still, giving the rest of us a bad rap.

Care to give some examples?

Thought I'd throw in one more bit about the anti-theism comments above, like @GeeSussFreeK 's.

I wholly agree that I detest these once atheists that have literally taken what is normally a balanced "naught" position as to God(s) existence barring evidence and instead these anti-theists ditch that stance and deem that not only is all religion a wash, but any God is as well. They're very "militant" in nature and seem to draw in those that are less secure about their own opinions; kind of like the Westboro Baptists. Unfortunately, they are also very pro-active, boisterous, and vitriolic in nature--worse of all they call themselves atheists still, giving the rest of us a bad rap.

Some of them though are just plain tired of the charades they have had to play with men they worked with, people they once respected--but, those same people might as well put their workmate, friend, and neighbors into brutal conditions for a simple principle held: atheism. It's happened before, not as ruthless as it may have been in the earlier centuries, but black listing someone in a community can happen. I've seen it happen innumerable times first hand! I can't blame some for their outrage and pointed damnation they hold for others; it was created by those that may complain that the volume and acidity of their words may be too strong--or too true.

Of course religion has it's share of idiots as well. They are almost always the fundamentalists, like the Westboro clan. Papa (George H. W.) Bush once said that atheists should have no rights in the U.S.--if he had his way--they would not be citizens nor would they be patriots. Because, this is a nation "under God"--atleast after that was added. Maybe Papa Bush didn't know that historical part. Religion also has a grand stand in politics and the media. That is yet another thing that must be remembered is that when an anti-theist does speak it will outrage the religious; but, atheists, anti-theists (even Jews, Muslims, Hindu, Buddhism, etc...), endure the endless exposure and should be expected to remain quiet... Fox News is the epitome of which I speak as it is nothing more than a pulpit for the rich, white, Christian, American, white collar worker.

But, there is one more consideration that HAS to be mentioned. As this point gets me to go after religious people all the time. If this makes me anti-theist, because I voiced a concern over what is being said--then anti-theism is far more wide-spread and has NOTHING to do with atheism. I do think this may be a common misconception from just my general experiences on the messageboards, here and elsewhere.

The problem is: Science!

This is especially true for all of the fundamental type religions. They all have a huge laundry list of minor science flaws to HUGE science flaws. Fundamentalism Christianity in the U.S. tends to take the lead in this war of fact versus opinion. There are plenty of fully qualified scientists out there that are religious, but ones that tend to go against the full body of evidence and scientific community to prove a religious claim tend to be "not fully qualified". They tend to use full scientific data and factual evidence to create a new theor...I mean hypothesis (many will try to use "theory", but their reason for their arrival at the new understanding tends to have no basis) and inject a very large amount of opinion, sprinkled with some facts. One such example is the red-shift video provided above by @shinyblurry .

Science can become a VERY heated area of topic when it comes to religion. This begins when a religion: tries to debunk a theory or a part of it, to commandeer a theory and direct a new conclusion to fit an already preconceived destination which has not been peer-reviewed or tested, repeating scientific theories in religious pamphlets or media while purposefully undermining the theory by not presenting in full and correct context or actually printing falsehoods, lying about the nature of scientific testing, repetitiously incorrectly stating current stances on various theories (like radio-carbon dating, etc...), attempts by any churches through the state to eliminate the teaching of branches of science--especially ones that have been tested so much that have attained the rank of THEORY (Evolution, etc...), again the use of lying in media against science--this has reached every facet of media-large and small.

I'm sure there are more. History has been a great use to show us what religion WILL do to science, even though all that is being shown is the truth. It truly is a dangerous weapon. If you can't except truth what hope do we have for you. Yes you can be a good person, but somehow you're flawed, unable to except reality.

When I was a believer (no matter what @shinyblurry says I was; I was Mormon and shiny seems to believe that his religious path is of course a T3 hard-line; were as Mormons just get the basic 56k dial-up...) I FELT the presence of God, or more accurately The Holy Ghost. I had no problem believing in everything science told me when I was religious. I knew it was the truth and I knew that God would not want me to ignore the grand insights into the workings of his masterpiece. I could feel in my soul, the first year I had physics, that something profound had just happened. I had found something I had been searching for my whole life. I felt connected to everything. I began to dismiss those that were religious around me and disliked evolution--to me evolution was so simple and yet such a wondrous way to create the most complex of things from literally the simplest. A literal masterpiece. So I do know that some can believe all that science says, but it's very hard in Christianity.

So I hope I made a point with this. Anti-theism comes from quite a few directions. The most usual and common sight is that you'll see between someone defending scientific theories, while the less common will be those that have been directly burned by the religious community they most likely once belonged to. The last is of course what was brought up in earlier posts: atheists who turn into anti-theists. They tend to be the kind that will assert that religion is evil no matter how small or insignificant it may play a role in someones life.

In the end most atheists boil down to this:

Stephen speaking to a religious friend...
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

~Stephen Roberts

/long

>> ^ReverendTed:

>> ^Powel6016:
These planes are 20+ years old. LOT needs new planes. Flew with LOT several times and its just ridiculous.
Just goes to show you, they don't build 'em like they used to.


The 767 has a far fewer deaths than its older cousin the 737. It isn't apples to apples, because they aren't the same class of plane, but the 737 has well over 3500+ fatalities, where as the 767 has about 500+. Its brother, the Narrow body 757, is over 700+ deaths in its run so far. The 737 is only a decade older, not enough to make up the death per year ratio of the 737. So in this case, thank god they don't make them like they used to. If you notice that in the ten latest crashes include a 737 and a 747. The 767 has had a bad rap ever since EgyptAir Flight 990, but it is a good hull if properly maintained. That being said, the plane in question was delivered to LOT on 15 May 1997, a very new plane in all respects.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^A10anis:
Pastor says; "it's indoctrination, children are in their formative years, and you start introducing sexuality into their young impressionable minds, you start changing our culture." Oh, unlike the indoctrination of their young impressionable minds into dogmatic, medieval, religion which, if not stopped, will END our culture.

Um, you do realize religion IS culture? It is a universal of all cultures--just like money and government and mental illness (1/4 of everyone...) You could say it is in our genes and we must unlearn it... Now, the different types of religions is something to debate...
But let's talk about why homosexuality has a bad rap... Homosexuality itself got a very bad rap because of one little nation that practiced it religiously... Rome... Rome was one big, gay death machine that the world hated so much that it now shuns even the good practices of the Empire. Think of the Middle East, nations that particularly had problems with Rome...yup, they really hate gay and lesbians...
Funny that Christianity became popular in Rome when those crimes were happening...ironic or just cause-and-effect...


Wrroonngg!

Roman society looked down on homosexuals.

They were seen as shameful and mostly had to hide themselves. The dictator Sula was most likely homosexual. Even though he had complete power over the Roman state he hid his sexuality until after he stepped down from power.

Ancient Greece on the other hand...