I'm just going to save everyone else the bother and call you a fucking idiot right away.

In Type 1 diabetes the body doesn't produce insulin. It's not just a little short, it has none. You can't survive long without insulin, not in any semblance of normality. Regardless of diet, you simply can't. Like you can't survive without oxygen. No amount of eating your greens will stop you drowning.

If you can find us a proper scientific double blind controlled study that shows that a placebo can make the pancreas of a type 1 diabetic produce insulin then I'll take back the fucking idiot bit. If you can't, you've just proved the fucking idiot bit.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and predict that after your next reply, the fucking idiot bit will remain.

No-one's saying a good diet and exercise aren't important, of course it is. But to say it can perform the miracles you're attributing to it is absurd. You even mention Cancer, as if it's a result of poor life choices. It's true that you can get cancer from poor life choices, but that's not the same as saying if you don't make poor life choices you can't get cancer.

Fucking idiot.

Show me the science (proper science) and I'll gladly retract all the nastiness. I challenge you to prove me wrong.

You're missing the whole point. You are intent on this idea that the cops are are to blame in any way for this. They are not. They did not bring the dog, they did not fail to restrain the dog. They did not place the dog in a situation where the dog became aggressively defensive. The owner of the dog did all of these things. The points you "conceded" were never points I was arguing. The cops will not be "in a shitload of trouble" because they acted in the best interest of their safety.

If you wish me to stop being all "he wins the internet" then stop being a snarky ass and declaring that I "win" when I moderately challenge you by presenting evidence (or rather mxxcon does) that confirms the exact shit I just said.

Lets do a challenge, you pick ANY religion or specific denomination of any religion on earth (except Islam) for me to draw (and specify any insult of your choice that I have to take responsibility for), and I'll draw it and post it under my real name in all the usual places. You draw prophet Muhammed just standing there, and post it everywhere under your real name.*

*If you are dumb enough to accept, I'll chicken out because I'll be worried about your safety, not mine.

I'm not abusing the term, I'm challenging you to think outside of the box. You use the term as cable news pundits have taught you to use it, as an epithet.

Your fragility when it comes to discussing feminism and gender issues reveals an incredible amount of bias on your part, to the point that it takes from the credibility of your arguments.

Is this fair? Is this productive? Should this invalidate or reduce the value of your opinions? Do you like being on the receiving end of this kind of argument that you so passionately defend?

If you don't think language plays a major role in how you think, then I encourage you to read up on the subject.

Willful contention or righteous indignation and frustration fuels my personal disgust with "so-called" news and "alleged" reporting of "facts." IF the big 3 from circa 1955 was truthfully and without bias reporting world events and delivering them to owners of televisions and radios then I am a woman,trapped in a child's body who speaks five dead languages fluently.

If major media outlets are not a pathetic informational aberration developed as it has to deliver DISinformation and propaganda which supports the agendas of her financiers and sponsors, then the mixture of inert gasses drawn into sentient lungs from the atmosphere circa 1350 was much more poisonous than it will be in 2019.

Because in 2020, ginourmous air scrubbers built by children in 4rth world countries will purify the atmosphere to Precambrian quality!

deedub81? Spot-on. If a collective boycott of their bullshit happened overnight, I challenge you that they would NOT adjust their mission of bullshit to accommodate the newly-awakened masses, they would not be ALLOWED to continue in any capacity.

What are the first institutions secured during a military coup? Presidential palace and communications outlets. (TV and Radio, internet). Best way to get cattle to do your bidding is to fill their heads with bullshit designed to CONTROL them, not to inform them.


OH....and I only voted Stink (Muckrack) Uruguay and his Smugly Smugstein-ass up because our ol' pal farhad2000 popped-up on the radar after extended hiatus-Howdy pardner!

I would test it, if I could. By “God”, I’m assuming you’re still talking about Yahweh specifically, and not just any random god-type entity. If that’s the case, then I’ve already falsified the claim that the Bible is perfect, so that argument is gone.

You haven't falsified it. If you have, show me where. If you're referring to Matthews lineage using Chiastic structure, that isn't an imperfection. Chaistic structure is a literary device, so Matthews genealogy is not giving us the entire line, but rather like an artistic summation of it. To say it is wrong would be like telling a painter his painting is wrong.

If you’re merely making a deist claim, then I can’t argue with you. I take no position on deism other than if some deity created the universe and set it in motion, I have no reason to believe it cares about humans, and it certainly has made no edicts that I perceive as to how I should live my life.

Since you have no argument against a potential God, and couldn't tell whether you were living in His Universe or not, then how would you know if this God cares about humans or if it has laid down any edicts about how you should live your life?

You’re not listening to me. Seriously. I do have ways of determining which story is more likely. Occam’s razor is the best for this problem. The complexities introduced by faith in Yahweh and the Bible are necessarily more complex than the problems they solve. They are also blind faith (I'm talking about the vast majority of the faithful, and about what you're recommending I do), which is willful self-delusion. The theories that physicists and biologists have come up with are quite convincing, especially if you understand how science works.

I have been listening to you and what I have found is that if you can find some kind of excuse to dismiss something that seems even potentially legitimate, then you run with it. You only seem interested in trying to falsify the question, because you apparently have already decided it isn't true. You don't have any real evidence to prove it, but in previous conversations you have said you see no reason to bother thinking about it. In short, you don't care.

You say I'm talking about blind faith, and I'm not. I believe what I believe because God convinced me of its truth. I had no reason to believe it otherwise, and I wouldn't. I am telling you that if you draw near to God, He will draw near to you. He loves you and wants you to know Him. You just don't want to know Him and that is the problem.

Neither do you understand the law of parsimony. The law states that in explaining a given phenomenon, we should make as few assumptions as possible. Therefore, if we have two theories which are equal in explanatory power, but one has fewer assumptions, we should choose the one with fewer assumptions. However, a more complex theory with better explanatory power should be chosen over a more simplistic theory with weaker explanatory power. I think John Lennox kind of sums this all up at 3:00



Agreed. I find myself in an environment in which my species was capable of evolving. It says nothing of how statistically improbable it is.

You were created in your parents womb; this says nothing about evolution. It only says that you have some way to come into existence, personally. It says nothing about the particulars of how that came to be.

Disagree. I’m lucky that of all the possible combinations of molecules that could have come together to create our terrestrial environment, the right ones came together to create life, then the right DNA strands combined to eventually create me. I’m lucky, sure, but given the length of time we’ve had, there’s no reason I should be surprised, especially when there's no reason to assert that this is the only universe.

There is no reason to assert it isn't, either. In a finely tuned Universe, it is more plausible to believe it was designed rather than it just happened to be one Universe out of trillions that implausibly just looks like it was designed because if you have enough Universes eventually one will form that appears that way. Remember Occams Razor?

You ask why multiple universes are more likely than a deity? Because you and I both know for sure there is at least one universe, so positing some more of them is less of a stretch than asserting a self-contradictory entity, alien to our objective experience, defying any consistent and meaningful description, so vastly complex that it cannot be properly understood, and so full of human failings that it looks man-made.

That would be true if God were any of those things. I can agree with you though that your understanding of God is self-contradictory, alien to your experience, etc. You believe you have God figured out, when you don't know Him at all. You would actually do anything to know God, but you are rejecting Him out of ignorance.

In the scenario between multiple universes or God as a theory to describe a finely tuned Universe, God wins every time. It doesn't matter how complex God might be; the explanatory power afforded by the theory is by far superior.

I’m sceptical of all your claims because that’s how I roll. I’m sceptical of everything, especially big claims. It’s the smartest way to avoid being duped.

You're skeptical of everything that doesn't agree with your presuppositions about reality. Those I have rarely if ever seen you seriously question in all the time I have spoken to you. Regarding knowledge that agrees with those presuppositions, you feel free to speculate about that all day long and will say that virtually any of it is more plausible with no evidence. The thing is, I used to be on your side of the fence, and I know what a search for the truth looks like. This isn't it.

The smartest way to avoid being duped is to understand that you might be duped at this moment and not realize it. That's the trouble with being deceived; you think you're right when you are really wrong.

You have been telling me that I must believe in the one true thing that is true that is Yahweh and the Bible and creation because it’s true because it’s true because it’s true because it’s the only possibility.

What I've been telling you is that God is not hiding from you. You are hiding from Him. It's not that you don't know there is a God so much as you don't want to know that there is. You simply want to do whatever you think is right and you automatically reject any possibility that says this is wrong and you are in fact accountable to a higher authority. In short, your attitude towards God is not skeptical but rebellious.

Now, I conceive of another possibility: my 10^trillion universes. You agree it’s possible, so there’s no reason for me to believe yours is necessarily true. If I have to choose between them, the one that doesn’t require the further explanation of a sentient deity more complex than 10^trillion universes is simpler. And even then, I DON’T HAVE TO CHOOSE one or the other. I can remain sceptical. To me, it’s foolish not to.

I concede its possible that God could have created other Universes, but I don't concede the idea that Universes just happen by themselves. This is really a very foolish idea. It's like coming across a coke can and believing wind and erosion created it. It only seems plausible to you because you must have a naturalistic explanation for your existence to make sense of your reality.

I don't expect you to believe in God unless He gives you some kind of revelation. I frequently pray that you will receive this revelation, both for you and the sake of your family.

Since I already pointed out this flawed understand of the law of parsimony, I won't reiterate that argument here.

While we’re talking about being honest with ourselves, I’d like to hear it from you that the following things are *at least technically possible*: that Yahweh doesn’t exist; that your relationship with Yahweh is an illusion created by you inside your head because you are human and human minds are prone to occasional spectacular mistakes; that the Bible was created by deluded humans; that the universe is around 14 billion years old; that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old; that life on Earth started 1-2 billion years ago; and that all species evolved from primitive life forms. To be clear, I’m not asking you to accept them as true or even probable, just state whether this collection of statements is possible or impossible.

This is what Paul said:

1 Corinthians 15:17,19

And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

I wasn't there at the resurrection; I take it on faith. My faith has been borne out by the evidence, such as being born again, witnessing miracles, and experiencing the presence of God in my daily life. I don't admit any of those things; I have most definitely received revelation from God, and there is no other plausible explanation for the evidence. If you can concede that God can give you certain knowledge then you can understand why I don't doubt that knowledge.

Notice what George Wald said?

I notice that you only quote scientists out of context, or when they’re speaking poetically. I guarantee he never said that in a scientific paper. Life may be a wonder, not a miracle.

I *only* do? That's a false generalization. This quote is right on target, and I challenge you to show me where I have taken George out of context. This is what scientists believe, that time + chance makes just about anything possible. Has life ever been observed coming entirely from non living matter? That's a miracle, and that's what you must believe happened either here or somewhere in the Universe.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2012/03/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/

Near the end, you’ll find this gem: “The history of physics has had that a lot, … Certain quantities have seemed inexplicable and fine-tuned, and once we understand them, they don’t seem to [be] so fine-tuned. We have to have some historical perspective.”

If you haven't done so already, watch the first 10-20 minutes of this: http://videosift.com/video/The-God-of-the-Gaps-Neil-deGrasse-Tyson. It's "creationism/intelligent design" laid bare as a position of weakness. Your "fine tuning" trope is part of "intelligent design" and has the same historical flaw.

It's the God of the gaps argument which is flawed. It's not a God of the gaps argument when the theory is a better explanation for the evidence.

It's just a bare fact that there is a number of physical constants in an extremely narrow range which conspire to create a life permitting Universe. It's even admitted on the wikipedia page:

Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life".[2] However he continues "...the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

What do you mean, “they hate that possibility”? Why should a scientist hate any possibility? If there were science that pointed to the real existence of God, that’s exactly the way their investigations would go. That’s what motivated early modern scientists – they believed unravelling the laws of the universe by experiment would reveal God’s nature. It was only when the scientific path of experimentation split conclusively away from the biblical account that anybody considered that religious faith and scientific endeavour might become separate enterprises.

The roost of the scientific establishment today is ruled by atheistic naturalists, and they very much hate the idea of God polluting their purely naturalistic theories. They consider science to be liberated from religion and they vigorously patrol the borders, expelling anyone who dares to question the established paradigm. A biologist today who questions the fundamentals of evolutionary theory commits professional suicide. It is now conventional wisdom and you either have to get with the program or be completely shut out of the community.

Here are some other interesting quotes for you:

Richard Lewontin “does acknowledge that scientists inescapably rely on ‘rhetorical’ proofs (authority, tradition) for most of what they care about; they depend on theoretical assumptions unprovable by hard science, and their promises are often absurdly overblown … Only the most simple-minded and philosophically naive scientist, of whom there are many, thinks that science is characterized entirely by hard inference and mathematical proofs based on indisputable data

Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.

As for the “much” stronger evidence, as stated in the article, every time scientists solve a mystery of something they thought was “finely tuned”, they realized that there is a much simpler explanation than God. Evolution, for instance, eliminates the question of "fine tuning" in life. “God” is a metaphor for “things outside my understanding”. Once they move within our understanding, nobody claims that they’re God anymore. And FWIW, some of the most famous scientists ever came to the same "Because God" conclusion, which held until someone else got past it and solved what they couldn't.

I'm glad you understand that the whole enterprise of science was initially driven by the Christian idea that God created an orderly Universe based on laws, and thus we could reason out what was going on by investigating secondary causes. Yet God wasn't a metaphor for something we didn't understand; God was the reason we were interested in trying to understand in the first place, or even thought that we could.

You say there is this "because God" brick wall that we break down by determining the operations of the Universe. We can then see that it was never God at all, but X Y Z, yet what does that prove? Genesis 1 says "God created", and that He controls everything. What you're confusing is mechanism with agency. Can you rule out a clockmaker by explaining how the clock works? That's exactly what you're saying here, and it is an invalid argument.

You also act as if evolution has been indisputably proven. Let me ask you this question, since you claim to understand science so well. What is the proof and evidence that evolution is a fact? Be specific. What clinches it?

So to your conclusion, how do you figure that the appearance of fine tuning—which seems to go away when you look close enough—is stronger evidence?

It only goes away when you come to a series of false conclusions as you have above. The evidence is there, even the scientists admit it. To avoid the conclusion multiple universes are postulated. However, this is even more implausible for this reason; the multiple universe generator would be even more fine tuned than this Universe. Therefore, you are pointing right back at a fine tuner once more.

Eh??? But in your last nine paragraphs, YOU yourself, a limited temporal creature, have been trying to prove God’s existence with your “fine tuning” argument (corrupt reasoning, like you say), even after you've repeatedly asserted in the other threads that the only possible evidence for God is that he’ll answer our prayers. Why are you bothering? It is laughable how inconsistent you’re being here.

I wouldn't know the truth on my own; only God can reveal what the truth is. There are two routes to the truth. One is that you're omnipotent. Another is that an omnipotent being tells you what the truth is. Can you think of any others?

Keep fishing. Either the patient being prayed for recovers or doesn't recover. If not, the sincere prayers weren't answered. Unless you’re suggesting God secretly removed the free will of the scientists and the people praying so that the tests would come back negative? Gimme a break.

You seem to believe that free will means God doesn't interfere in the Creation, and this isn't the case. Free will means, you have the choice to obey or disobey God. It doesn't mean you are free from Gods influences. That's the whole idea of prayer, that God is going to exert His influence on creation to change something. God is directly involved in the affairs of men, He sets up Kingdoms, He takes them away. He put you where He wanted you and He will take you out when He has sovereignly planned to do it.

Even if the prayers are sincere, God isn't going to heal everyone. Yes, either way the patient recovers or doesn't recover, and either way, God isn't going to reveal His existence outside of what He has ordained; faith in His Son Jesus Christ. Anyone trying to prove Gods existence any other way will always come away disappointed.

And all of this was written only after the prophesy was fulfilled. A little too convenient.

Actually it was written hundreds of years before hand.

The 70 weeks are not concurrent, first of all.

I know. I'm assuming they were consecutive. How could 70 weeks be concurrent? That makes no sense at all. Even if you meant to say “not consecutive”, what does it mean to declare a time limit of 70 weeks if they're not consecutive? It means nothing. That time limit could extend to today. What's your source for saying they're not concurrent/consecutive/whatever?

This is why I suggested you become more familiar with theology. Yes, you're right, I meant to say consecutive. You would know they were not consecutive if you read the scripture. The prophecy identifies they are not consecutive. Please see this:

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2004/552/

Again, conveniently, this “prediction” doesn't appear in writing until after the fall of Jerusalem.

Jerusalem fell in 70 AD. The gospels were written beforehand. If they were written afterwards, there would have been a mention of the fall of the city, if only to confirm the prophecy, but there is no mention of it in any of the gospels.

I'll rephrase this by saying, that Jesus fulfilled dozens of prophecies about the coming of the Messiah. Clearly, the impact of that Jesus has had on the world matches His claims about who He is.

Which clearly defined prophecies did he fulfil, not including ones that he knew about and could choose to do (like riding on a donkey)?

http://www.godonthe.net/evidence/messiah.htm

Except for all the religions that aren't Christian. They don’t belong to him, and they have surely had enough time to hear his voice.

The world belongs to Christ. The difference between the Lord and the other religions is this:

1 Chronicles 16:26

For all the gods of the nations are idols, but the LORD made the heavens

You really think that’s unique to Christianity? Do you know much about Islam? And I don't mean Western stereotypes of it. I mean, really know how normal Muslim people live their lives.

Muslims don't have a personal relationship with God. Allah keeps them at arms length, and they mostly serve him out of fear. They also have no idea whether they are going to heaven or not. They only hope that at the end of time their good works will add up more than their bad ones. The reason Muslims choose martyrdom is because under Islam it is the only guaranteed way to go to Heaven.

I get it. It’s a test of sincerity. For whom? Who is going to read and understand the results? To whom is the sincerity proven that didn't know it before, requiring a test? I think you’re avoiding admitting it’s God because that would mean there’s something God doesn't know.

Why do metalworkers purify gold? To remove the dross. That's exactly what God is doing when He tests us:

1 Peter 1:6

In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials.

These have come so that your faith--of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire--may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.

>> ^messenger:

stuff

I'm sure this poll is a shock to many of you. Growing up in the secular world, where all of the media you consume is geared towards secular interests, and when all of the people you hang around have those same interests, you might get the idea that Christians just constitute some fringe part of society. At least, that's what I used to think. I was fairly shocked to find out that this country is predominantly Christian. Or that 1/3 of the worlds population is Christian.

I am also in the more unique position of having once been a die hard believer in evolution and the old age of the Earth, and being convinced otherwise by the evidence, or lack there of. To note, I was perfectly willing to accept these two ideas, even as a Christian. I had been fully indoctrinated and so I had naturally expected to find a preponderance of strong evidence for them, case closed. It was only after investigating the data (and not just the conclusions) that I was *extremely* shocked to find that it took a greater leap of faith to believe in those theories than it did to believe Genesis.

For those of you unafraid to challenge your preconceived notions, and challenge you it will, I recommend this book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0890510628/ref=tmm_pap_used_olp_sr?ie=UTF8&condition=used

I don't need an argument to disprove god because no one has ever come up with a rigorous argument and evidence to prove he exists in the first place...

For instance, if I claimed the flying spaghetti monster was the ultimate deity in the universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster), you would feel absolutely no need to seriously debate the point because, to you, it would be sheer nonsense. The same if I claimed the force existed, or worshipped ancient Norse or Greek gods. You would dismiss it out of hand because you believe something to the exclusion of everything else.

Similarly, an ancient book and a crowd of gullible people willing to believe it aren't enough evidence to get me to bother to waste my time disproving it.

As for the rambling diatribe after where you climb up on your cross and proclaim your humbleness for everyone to see, you have more in common with the pharisees than you may wish to admit. They also proclaimed loudly and proudly about all their good works no? Jesus didn't have much kind to say about those hypocrites, I doubt he'd feel any better (if he exists) about your intolerant proselytising...


>> ^shinyblurry:
You could disprove the idea of God if it were logically inconsistant. I challenge you to come up with an argument.
You think I am here for me, but I am not. I am here because of Jesus, and because of you. I care about you enough to take all of your insults and condescension so I can have a chance to tell you how much God loves you. My only motive here, and in everything else in my life, is to serve the will of God. I haven't always done that, but in any case, it's not about me; my life is not my own; it belongs to Him.

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^Fletch:
Who says I don't read them? I'm always up for a laugh.
You say you don't read them. You've gone out of your way to tell me you don't read them. Now suddenly you're reading them again?
>> ^Fletch:
That said, I haven't seen a single comment you've ever made that wasn't SPAM. As a charter, I don't want to see ads, and I long ago tired of your incessant, blathering sales pitch. Quite frankly, someone as condescending, self-righteous, arrogant, ignorant, and obnoxious as yourself is not going to win any converts, and I think you know that. Which means your continued infection of VS must be ego-driven, a false sense that you are doing "good" in your tiny little universe. Then again, the ability to lie to oneself is fundamental to buying into the whole magic-man-in-the-sky thing, so maybe you can't/refuse to understand how most of us perceive you.
Many people on this site, including you, are antitheists; I know exactly how you feel about me, not withstanding, what it says in scripture:
1 Corinthians 1:18
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
I never expected to be welcomed into a community made up of atheists, agnostics and antitheists. However, there are a few that have crossed lines and been friendly with me, although they talk to me in private because of the massive social stigma against talking to me that people like yourself have perpetuated. I would also note that dag has always been welcoming and fair with me, and he has said a few times that he appreciates my contributions here. I've tried to participate more in the community, but since people always downvote all of my comments and videos, I just participate in the topics that interest me and try to find good conversation.
>> ^Fletch:
When I was a child, I remember running upstairs one Christmas morning and telling my parents that I not only saw Santa last night, but I TALKED to him as well. I related our entire conversation of cookies and reindeer, how I helped him carry the 4-man toboggan that now leaned against the fireplace, and how he gave our dog, Missy, a Milk-bone. I knew I was lying, but who would ever suspect? Santa is real, right? And he's magic. Everyone knows that. I wasn't lying about Santa. He was real to me, as he must be real to everyone. Just a small fib about our interaction that no mere muggle could challenge. I was a star. I TALKED to Santa! Company would come over, and my parents would have me relate my tale to them. They ate it up.
To me, you are the me who saw Santa, a pathetic nincompoop who feels solace in the fact that science can't prove a negative (it doesn't work that way), AND you're trying to sell me microwave popcorn and beefsticks, AND you won't quit ringing my doorbell.
Anyone can prove a negative. For instance, there are no muslim senators. You can check it out there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_affiliation_in_the_United
_States_Senate
You could disprove the idea of God if it were logically inconsistant. I challenge you to come up with an argument.
You think I am here for me, but I am not. I am here because of Jesus, and because of you. I care about you enough to take all of your insults and condescension so I can have a chance to tell you how much God loves you. My only motive here, and in everything else in my life, is to serve the will of God. I haven't always done that, but in any case, it's not about me; my life is not my own; it belongs to Him.


TL;DR

>> ^Fletch:
Who says I don't read them? I'm always up for a laugh.

You say you don't read them. You've gone out of your way to tell me you don't read them. Now suddenly you're reading them again?

>> ^Fletch:
That said, I haven't seen a single comment you've ever made that wasn't SPAM. As a charter, I don't want to see ads, and I long ago tired of your incessant, blathering sales pitch. Quite frankly, someone as condescending, self-righteous, arrogant, ignorant, and obnoxious as yourself is not going to win any converts, and I think you know that. Which means your continued infection of VS must be ego-driven, a false sense that you are doing "good" in your tiny little universe. Then again, the ability to lie to oneself is fundamental to buying into the whole magic-man-in-the-sky thing, so maybe you can't/refuse to understand how most of us perceive you.

Many people on this site, including you, are antitheists; I know exactly how you feel about me, not withstanding, what it says in scripture:

1 Corinthians 1:18

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

I never expected to be welcomed into a community made up of atheists, agnostics and antitheists. However, there are a few that have crossed lines and been friendly with me, although they talk to me in private because of the massive social stigma against talking to me that people like yourself have perpetuated. I would also note that dag has always been welcoming and fair with me, and he has said a few times that he appreciates my contributions here. I've tried to participate more in the community, but since people always downvote all of my comments and videos, I just participate in the topics that interest me and try to find good conversation.

>> ^Fletch:
When I was a child, I remember running upstairs one Christmas morning and telling my parents that I not only saw Santa last night, but I TALKED to him as well. I related our entire conversation of cookies and reindeer, how I helped him carry the 4-man toboggan that now leaned against the fireplace, and how he gave our dog, Missy, a Milk-bone. I knew I was lying, but who would ever suspect? Santa is real, right? And he's magic. Everyone knows that. I wasn't lying about Santa. He was real to me, as he must be real to everyone. Just a small fib about our interaction that no mere muggle could challenge. I was a star. I TALKED to Santa! Company would come over, and my parents would have me relate my tale to them. They ate it up.

To me, you are the me who saw Santa, a pathetic nincompoop who feels solace in the fact that science can't prove a negative (it doesn't work that way), AND you're trying to sell me microwave popcorn and beefsticks, AND you won't quit ringing my doorbell.

Anyone can prove a negative. For instance, there are no muslim senators. You can check it out there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_affiliation_in_the_United_States_Senate

You could disprove the idea of God if it were logically inconsistant. I challenge you to come up with an argument.

You think I am here for me, but I am not. I am here because of Jesus, and because of you. I care about you enough to take all of your insults and condescension so I can have a chance to tell you how much God loves you. My only motive here, and in everything else in my life, is to serve the will of God. I haven't always done that, but in any case, it's not about me; my life is not my own; it belongs to Him.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
At any rate, don't take my word for it, there is lots of data out there to look over.


No there isn't because we haven't had enough reactors for a long period of time to get a large enough date sample. The only reason Chernoble wasn't as bad as it could be here was because it wasn't placed in Downtown LA. Look I get it, it's cleaner than coal...it's not safe, don't try to make it sound safe. Japan proved it's not safe...lets put a few in tornado alley and see what happens...or maybe some on the San Andreas Fault.
Whatever data that's out there it's not a big enough sample size...it's like asking 100 people to represent that nations opinions. No Nuclear Power until we at least kill half the population.

I don't think you realize how much power nuclear provides. At over 61,032 MW, and nearly 450 plants, there is a ton of data on how safe and clean they are. Japan proved that even in a case of a nuclear meltdown from a Tsunami that killed over 10k people, 3 explosions, and flooding...and only ONE person died (from a heart attack), that nuclear reactors are one of the great engineering examples in the world today. Not only that, but that reactor is over 40 years old, a gen 1 reactor. Many modern reactors not longer use regular water, or water at all as a coolant, so are much much safer. But even then, more people have died falling off roof tops installing solar panels than even in Fukushima. I think you have made up your mind already, but I challenge you to examine your opinion and see if it hasn't been formed by fear factor media hype instead of facts and evidence. I know I had similar to your opinion not to long ago. The evidence is pretty clear, nuclear power has the best track record of any power source in the history of man in terms of production and safety. There are still some bad reactors out there, but take that into consideration, there are 1000 different ways to do nuclear energy, just because one or 2 reactors designs are bad doesn't make the whole lot bad. That is like saying since Ford made a bad car once, not only are all Fords bad, but all cars, it is a reaction that is based more in emotion than evidence, and the evidence is that pound for pound, fission is the safest and cleanest energy around, even in spite of running on 50 year old tech ( you should see the stuff we have now). Think of how different cars and planes have gotten in 50 years, how much safer, how much more reliable!?


I'll be honest...I don't give a shit I just want you to shut up.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
At any rate, don't take my word for it, there is lots of data out there to look over.


No there isn't because we haven't had enough reactors for a long period of time to get a large enough date sample. The only reason Chernoble wasn't as bad as it could be here was because it wasn't placed in Downtown LA. Look I get it, it's cleaner than coal...it's not safe, don't try to make it sound safe. Japan proved it's not safe...lets put a few in tornado alley and see what happens...or maybe some on the San Andreas Fault.
Whatever data that's out there it's not a big enough sample size...it's like asking 100 people to represent that nations opinions. No Nuclear Power until we at least kill half the population.


I don't think you realize how much power nuclear provides. At over 61,032 MW, and nearly 450 plants, there is a ton of data on how safe and clean they are. Japan proved that even in a case of a nuclear meltdown from a Tsunami that killed over 10k people, 3 explosions, and flooding...and only ONE person died (from a heart attack), that nuclear reactors are one of the great engineering examples in the world today. Not only that, but that reactor is over 40 years old, a gen 1 reactor. Many modern reactors not longer use regular water, or water at all as a coolant, so are much much safer. But even then, more people have died falling off roof tops installing solar panels than even in Fukushima. I think you have made up your mind already, but I challenge you to examine your opinion and see if it hasn't been formed by fear factor media hype instead of facts and evidence. I know I had similar to your opinion not to long ago. The evidence is pretty clear, nuclear power has the best track record of any power source in the history of man in terms of production and safety. There are still some bad reactors out there, but take that into consideration, there are 1000 different ways to do nuclear energy, just because one or 2 reactors designs are bad doesn't make the whole lot bad. That is like saying since Ford made a bad car once, not only are all Fords bad, but all cars, it is a reaction that is based more in emotion than evidence, and the evidence is that pound for pound, fission is the safest and cleanest energy around, even in spite of running on 50 year old tech ( you should see the stuff we have now). Think of how different cars and planes have gotten in 50 years, how much safer, how much more reliable!?

This is the original swiftboating... ronpauling...

We begin with two simple questions:

Why would he put out publications under his name without the slightest idea what was in them?
And if he didn't write the stuff, why hasn't he identified the author and revealed his name?



Based on comparing the writings and positions of Dr. Paul and several other people involved, it would appear the people responsible would be:

Murray Rothbard,
http://murrayrothbard.com/category/rothbard-rockwell-report/


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My google quest began with this article and the comments in it, i have compiled my results:
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/12/22/about-those-racist-ron-paul-newsletters-that-he-didnt-read-and-completely-disavowed

------------------------------------------------ RESEARCH

HERE'S RON PAULS RESPONSE:

"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts. When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

-------------------------------

OK, fair enough. Now for a 1995 interview, go to 1:54, here is transcription with his interview proving that he knew newsletters existed, not all the content. In fact, he seems more concerned with finance:

“Along with that I also put out a political, uh, type of business investment newsletter, sort of covered all these areas. And it covered, uh, a lot about what was going on in Washington and financial events, especially some of the monetary events since I had been especially interested in monetary policy, had been on the banking committee, and still very interested in, in that subject.. that, uh, this newsletter dealt with that… has to do with the value of the dollar [snip] and of course the disadvantages of all the high taxes and spending that our government seems to continue to do.”

Watch video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW755u5460A

A constant theme in Paul’s rhetoric, dating back to his first years as a congressman in the late 1970s, is that the United States is on the edge of a precipice. The centerpiece of this argument is that the abandonment of the gold standard has put the United States on the path to financial collapse.
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98811/ron-paul-libertarian-bigotry

------------------------------------------------------

So what about that, he did have a newsletter? Did it talk about more than money, and did he author those writings? Well it gets more interesting..

this is from a comment here:
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/22/the-ron-paul-newsletter-and-his-jeremiah-wright-moment/#comment-152657

"Wish I had saved the links. This Dondero guy was supposedly part of a group of people that wrote the content of the newsletters (maybe seven different people), and that Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard were the main brains behind the content. Ron Paul wrote some of the content too (probably about sound money, lol). They have also hinted (maybe Rockwell did), that the writer of some of the extreme articles was now dead. It seems that multiple people from that time have died, but the most relevant is Murray Rothbard. He’s like a messiah to this sub-culture, and Rockwell would probably never spill the beans on Rothbard. The tone of the racially offensive parts does seem like it would be written by Rothbard. If you are unlucky enough to attempt to listen through one of his lectures on YouTube, you will notice his attempts at sarcastic humor, if you don’t fall asleep first.

Dondero: “Neither Rockwell or Rothbard are/were “libertarians.” In his later yers Rothbard called himself a “Paleo” aligning with the conservative southern successionists. Rockwell, today calls himself an Anarchist, and has distanced himself greatly from any part of the libertarian movement.”

http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2011/02/1970s80s-libertarian-party-stalwart.html

“The newsletters’ obsession with blacks and gays was of a piece with a conscious political strategy adopted at that same time by Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard. After breaking with the Libertarian Party following the 1988 presidential election, Rockwell and Rothbard formed a schismatic “paleolibertarian” movement, which rejected what they saw as the social libertinism and leftist tendencies of mainstream libertarians. In 1990, they launched the Rothbard-Rockwell Report, where they crafted a plan they hoped would midwife a broad new “paleo” coalition.”

http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter"

---------------------------

Ok now we're getting somewhere.. so what about Dondero, Rockwell, and Rothbard?

Reason: Your former staffer Eric Dondero is challenging you for your House seat in 2008.
Paul: He's a disgruntled former employee who was fired.
http://reason.com/blog/2007/05/22/ron-paul-on-9-11-and-eric-dond

-----------------------------------
What about these mid 1990's interviews like this one from the Dallas Morning News:

In 1996, Paul told The Dallas Morning News that his comment about black men in Washington came while writing about a 1992 study by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank in Virginia. The comment about black males being fleet of foot came from a 1992 newsletter, disavowed by Paul.

Paul cited the study and wrote (NOT SAID): “Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

“These aren’t my figures,” Paul told the Morning News. “That is the assumption you can gather from the report.”

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. [...]

"If someone challenges your character and takes the interpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man's character, what kind of a world do you live in?" Dr. Paul asked.

In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

"If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said.

He also said the comment about black men in the nation's capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia

Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said the congressman was practicing medicine at the time the newsletters were published and “did not write or approve the incendiary passages and does not agree with them.”

“He has, however, taken moral responsibility because they appeared under his name and slipped through under his watch,” Benton said. “They do not reflect what he believes in: liberty and dignity for all mankind. … Dr. Paul, renowned as a straight shooter who speaks his mind, has given literally thousands of speeches over the past 35 years, and he has never spoken such things.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul, an obstetrician from Surfside, Tex., denied he is a racist and charged Austin lawyer Charles "Lefty" Morris, his Democratic opponent, with taking his 1992 writings out of context
http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d

"Instead of talking about the issues, our opponent has chosen to lie and try to deceive the people of the 14th District," said Paul spokesman Michael Sullivan, who added that the excerpts were written during the Los Angeles riots when "Jesse Jackson was making the same comments."

-----------------

And all the confusion because he wanted to take responsibility. .. and the real issue? Not with what he may have said, or how consistent he has been denying this lie, but merely:

"Would he even check in to see if his ideas are being implemented? Who would he appoint to Cabinet positions?"

it comes down to an EITHER/OR false choice:

Either Paul is so oblivious to what was being done in his name that this obliviousness alone disqualifies him for a job like the presidency
— or -
he knew very well that horrific arguments were being published his name and he lent his name to a cynical racist strategy anyway.

Is there not any other choice?

There is your answer. The GOP is trying to sow any and all doubt at any and all cost. The content of the newsletters is just convenient; they would have done this anyway.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/the-story-behind-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters/250338/
-------------------------------------

So Why Smear Ron Paul? Here is why... and the answer may NOT surprise you:

http://www.infowars.com/cnn-poll-ron-paul-most-popular-republican-amongst-non-whites/

yet we're supposed to believe this man, a physician and politician, has actually uttered words like, ""Am I the only one sick of hearing about the 'rights' of AIDS carriers?"

Please. It is VERY unlikely.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/165290/why-do-gop-bosses-fear-ron-paul

Thank you for your time.

First of all, we can all tell that you are an absolutist at heart. Especially, when it comes to religion and science in second as of course you've allowed religion to trump scientific findings. You even go as far as contending the possibility that an evil force was working on my behalf while I was a believer (to make it clear to all i was a Mormon, which is of course off limits according to @shinyblurry ).

I already explained to you that I was willing to accept the conclusions of science about evolution and the long history of the Earth after I became a Christian, but after I investigated them I found the evidence to be totally insufficient to hold either view. It's funny that atheists like to repeat the tired old line of "you don't understand anything about science" and actually never demonstrate any scientific knowledge at all. I actually know a lot more about evolutionary theory than most atheists I meet, because I have extensively researched both sides of the issue. If you think that you're so schooled in the theory, let's see how much you actually know.

Yes, I believe in absolute truth. If you don't believe in absolute truth, could you tell me if you believe that absolutely?

The scientific side is hilarious. The book linked to is , right off the bat, intelligent design--they claim to know all and complain that science doesn't know it all. Second, when I hear the terms micro and macro evolution or transitional fossils on the Internet I can be guaranteed that an evolution debate versus those that do follow the scientific theory and principles behind it and the furiously religious with their "alternative evidence" is very close at hand.

You accuse me of ignorance yet here you are judging the book to be unworthy of your time, and dismissing it utterly. That is pretty ignorant. As it has challenged evolutionary biologists, I am 100 percent certain it will challenge you. If you are so dogmatic as to dismiss any other viewpoint, you're the one who doesn't understand science. Clinging to a particular theory with a religious fervour is exactly what science isn't. btw, you do know that micro and macro evolution are terms used by evolutionary biologists to distinguish between changes in allele frequencies on or above the species level, right?

I've spent more of my life learning about the natural world than I ever did about religion. One, because it's useful, I can use it in a practical way. Two, it gives me insights into things I would have never had otherwise. I don't get involved in scientific versus religious "science" debates on the Internet for a few reasons. One, the argument WILL end at the same spot it started. Two, to truly learn science you NEED to practice it and read about it--as much as you would spend on your religious studies and activities. Three, you must learn that you are standing in a valley with no view of your surroundings (understanding wise); but, if you try hard you can stand on the shoulders of giants (like Einstein) and see beyond the valley, even to the horizon. This is why it is so easy for so may scientists to easily dismiss EVERY critique from the religious side--you truly have no idea how little sense some of what is said makes. It's why I dismiss what you have said @shinyblurry (science wise); you are not the first to make the insinuations you have, they've already been dealt with elsewhere.

Maybe one day you'll get to the top of the mountain:

Science has proved that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks: 'What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter or energy into the universe?' And science cannot answer these questions. "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Robert Jastrow


>> ^kceaton1

@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