@ghark, thanks for the links, I read all of them, very informative.

I'm sure you know that economics has more than one school of thought, which often times are very opposed to each other not only in theory, but also in their interpretations of important historical events like the Great Depression or even the Industrial Revolution. It seems straightforward that, given all historical evidence we have, there should be only one account of what went down in history, right? It's too bad that's not the case Historians are, themselves, often influenced by their own ideological bias. At least we both know it would be naïve to think all historians agree exactly on everything in history! Ask economists from different schools what happened during the Great Depression and they will invoke very opposite historic accounts.

A quick google search gave me an article stating almost the opposite of your 1st article (which is no surprise given its purpose to dismiss an alleged economic myth):
http://economics.about.com/cs/taxpolicy/a/taxing_growth.htm

That being said, I'd like to address your statement that "higher taxes is bad for our economy" being a rumor spread by the rich. I could just as well state the opposite is a rumor spread by those with a vested interest on taxing other people: the government and those who aren't being taxed. Wouldn't you agree that's more likely, given there are more people with that vested interest than rich people in the world? Also, wouldn't it be more likely that, maybe, a socialist ideology would be behind an effort to spread such a statement? I'm not questioning socialism, just saying, it's very likely a socialist would take a biased interpretation of economic growth and higher taxation and state that they're related in direct proportion (socialists usually want bigger governments that require higher taxes).

Economists say controversial things like "war is good/bad for the economy", "inflation is good/bad for the economy", "when you break a window, that helps/hinders the economy", so it's no wonder that something like "higher taxes is good/bad for the economy" falls into that category.

We cannot solve all economic fallacies here, I'm just trying to point out that we should be aware of the underlying economic schools of thought to better understand the ideological bias motivating their own sets of conclusions.

Chile's approach does not seem free market to me, even if it appears to be closer to that because of privatization. All education there seems to be state funded. When the state comes into a market providing easy money, costs go up, it's supply and demand. If every student has X amount of money provided by the state, private schools stop competing over price, so tuition costs go up (at least that's what I could gather, I'm sorry if I'm not exactly an expert on the Chile situation!)

About the uneven distribution, what I was stating is that not much moral judgement can be made on distribution itself, but on how this distribution is happening. If you have more money than me, I don't have enough information to judge whether that situation is unfair or whether you're undeserving of that money.

When I consider those who benefitted from TARP bailouts though, it pisses me off , because they got money from the taxpayer, money that they're not legitimately entitled to, they didn't have to work for, they didn't deserve. That particular kind of uneven distribution is scandalous IMHO, and it's the kind of injustice that more often results from misallocation of taxpayer money that is more likely to happen with higher taxation.

@Kofi 's definition is a good and meaningful one, but of the type I already said was too narrow to be useful to anyone but historians.

Stripping away historical context, which is ultimately trivia; the negations, which define what fascism was reacting against rather than what it actually is; mere observations about the behaviour of fascist states in practice - suppression of dissent is inevitable in any authoritarian and particularly collectivist society, and not unique to fascism or in any way one of its core ideals; its arbitrary and debatable place on the political spectrum; and assuming that it is in fact useful to use the term fascist outside the very limited area of italian political history - you're left with a definition very like mine:

Fascism is a radical political ideal defined by its emphasis on social unity, nationalism and authoritarian leadership.

This is almost exactly the method I used to arrive at my definition in the first place. So; Nationalism, Collectivism, Authoritarianism (inward aggression). To that I've added Militarism (outward aggression) and Stupidity (we could say anti-intellectualism and anti-rationalism, but we're avoiding negation and Stupidity is anyway genuinely more relevant - fascists are proudly and unapologetically stupid).

Do we like this definition? I say it applies to Obama, his two predecessors, and all of their contemporary peers.

I'm interested if Gorillaman thinks that George W. Bush was a fascist as well.

In fact, by your definition GM every American president has been fascist even before fascism existed.

Without common referents language fails to be useful. You can be arguing about something based upon significant differences in definition without knowing it. So, while GM has failed to address the dictionary definition on the basis that it does not show enough effort I will now present a definition of fascism that is accepted amoung historians and political scientists alike. With this Gorillaman can amend has he sees fit but must acknowledge the consequences of agreeing upon a universalisable definition insofar as they apply to anyone else who is or has been in a position akin to the POTUS.

Fascism.
The Fascist party was formed in Italy in the wake of World War 1. It was an ultra-right radical political ideal defined by its emphasis on social unity, nationalism (regardless of race in its initial incarnation) and authoritarian leadership. It was characterised by its violent and brutal oppression of opposition parties and voices of dissent and its anti-liberal, anti-communist and anti-intellectualism. Nazism is fascistic but not fascist. Franco's Spain was more in line with fascism. It is often debated in academic literature whether it is useful to even use the term fascist outside of the Fascist party of Italy of the interwar period.

There you go Gorillaman. You now have a definition of fascism from a bonafide political science grad student. Now please indicate how this applies to Obama and, out of interest, how it does or does not apply to the last 3 presidents of the U.S.A. or any leader in a liberal-democratic nation.

Edit:
P.S. Dictionary definitions are used very frequently in scholarly writing. Wikipedia is another matter.

>> ^gorillaman:

It's funny how this word that apparently everyone but me is able to apply accurately suddenly becomes so elusive when it's time for you to spit out a definition. Historically it has been difficult; but so many experts have weighed in here, thirty of them so far echoing Inigo Montoya, that together you ought to have a pretty solid consensus.
But you don't.
Well, I use two definitions of fascism. Both equally valid, both describe Obama.
My broad definition of fascism is anything that restricts freedom for a bullshit reason. You guys might not like that one.
My narrow definition of fascism is any political movement characterised by most or all of the following: nationalism, collectivism, authoritarianism, militarism, and stupidity. Obama's regime is five out of five by that measure.
Narrower definitions exist - they're not useful to anybody but historians.
I believe fascists should be killed. I want all of you to believe it too.


How about instead we go down the (admittedly controversial) route of using a dictionary to define fascism, as opposed to your "anyone who disagrees me" definition. Here, I'll even look it up for you.

"Fascism : noun
1: often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control Now, if you truly believe that Obama satisfies those requirements, you're either a) an idiot or b) suffering from a severe case of first world problems.

Hyperbole adds nothing to the discussion.

It's funny how this word that apparently everyone but me is able to apply accurately suddenly becomes so elusive when it's time for you to spit out a definition. Historically it has been difficult; but so many experts have weighed in here, thirty of them so far echoing Inigo Montoya, that together you ought to have a pretty solid consensus.

But you don't.

Well, I use two definitions of fascism. Both equally valid, both describe Obama.

My broad definition of fascism is anything that restricts freedom for a bullshit reason. You guys might not like that one.

My narrow definition of fascism is any political movement characterised by most or all of the following: nationalism, collectivism, authoritarianism, militarism, and stupidity. Obama's regime is five out of five by that measure.

Narrower definitions exist - they're not useful to anybody but historians.

I believe fascists should be killed. I want all of you to believe it too.

I'm not at all a scholar of the bible. I've read parts, I've been to
Sunday school before i was confirmed (age 14) and I have at times had
fun reading it.

Well, I would encourage you to try to understand it. Every conversation I've ever had with an atheist about the bible either brings up the same five things from the old testament or their doubts about who wrote the bible..and that's it. I've never actually spoken to an atheist, and I've spoken to many atheists, who even understood the basics. I think that if you're going to criticize something, you should at least try to understand it at a basic level..maybe that's just me. Although, the lack of understanding matches what the bible says, that the truth is spiritually discerned. Without the Holy Spirit, the atheist is going to find it fairly impossible to comprehend.

Arguing from authority is not a strong argument. Just because "the
intellectual scholarship" is much greater than I understand, doesn't
change what the book says. And since new evidence is not uncovered, it
is what it is, you are forced to "interpret new evidence" and that's
not the way the world works.

What you, and many others try to imply, is that what is the bible is simplistic, and for people without any intellectual standards. The truth is that what is in the bible is complex, and it takes a real intellect (supplanted with godly wisdom) to be able to understand it. The intellectual scholarship is vast because the bible is inexaustible. It functions as a cogent whole, and address all the deep questions that human beings have. It is not simple by any stretch of the imagination.

1) Personal evidence cannot be verified. What things were revealed to
you before you ever read or understood them? How were they revealed,
what was revealed, how did you later understand them / where did you
read them?

I would like to understand your thought process, which is why I ask.

Is it possible that you already had a forgone conclusion when you read
X, and therefore you interpreted X the way you wanted?

God had revealed to me through signs that He is a triune God, and that He has a Messiah, someone whose job it is to save the world. So when I finally read the bible, those signs are what initially confirmed it to be true. I didn't have any foregone conclusions about the bible before I read it. I had no actual idea what Christianity was all about.

What happened? How has your life improved, what did you do before,
what do you do now? How can you tell that it happened supernaturally?
Is there any difference from that to just having a profound change of
heart. If you are talking about addiction, it is possible to fill the
void of that addiction with other things - some people exchange
cigarettes with food, why not religion/faith? Does your faith take up
as much of your time as "the unhealthy things" you did before?

Before I became a Christian I was a theist, and before I was a theist I was an agnostic. When I became a theist my bad behavior didn't change. I was like Enoch, in that I believed that none of the religions were true, or that all of them just had pieces of who God is. I believed in a God that loved you the way you are and didn't particularly enforce any kind of behavior upon you, as long as your heart was in the right place. I would think that God, knowing me intimately, and knowing my good intentions, was very understanding if I did something which was out of line. Of course God is very patient with all of us, but the point is that I had plenty of faith in God at the time, and spent my time thinking about Him and pursuing the truth. The difference is that once I accepted Jesus into my heart as my Lord and Savior, everything changed.

It was only when I became a Christian that my behavior changed, and much of that practically overnight. When you're born again, you are spiritually cleansed and start out with a blank slate. You become like new. I had addictions, depression, anger, pain, sadness, and other issues that left me in short order. Some of those things I never thought I would give up, some of them I never wanted to give up, but I immediately lost the desire for them. It was a change of heart; God gave me a new one. It was supernatural because as I said, I didn't do any work. People spend their entire lives in therapy or counseling and spend tens of thousands of dollars or more to get rid of just some of these problems, and often don't see any results. I lost almost all of my baggage in just a few short months.

3) Not really. It only accounts for a visual interpretation of how men act. The writers of it has observed how people act and guessed at reasons why that is. Some are close to reality, some are way off. Which human behaviors does it predict? How and where does it describe in finite detail how those behaviors are created? I'm looking for actual citations here, because this is complete news to me.

It predicts all kinds of human behaviors by describing the mechanisms which motivate them to act. It shows the fundemental dichotomy of the heart of man. As an example:

James 3:3-10

When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can turn the whole animal. Or take ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go. Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.

All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and creatures of the sea are being tamed and have been tamed by man, but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.

With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.

and

Matthew 12:34

O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

and

Matthew 15:19-20

But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

4) I disagree. It describes a point of view. The morality of the God of the bible is hardly any good morality. We have an ingrown moral compass, I can agree on that, it's been naturally selected against because it helped our ancestors to survive and procreate. "His moral law" is atrocious, if the bible is any indicator.

If everyone followed the morality that Jesus taught us, this planet would be as close to a utopia it could possibly get. He taught us to love one another, to forgive as a rule, to do good to even those who hate you, to help everyone in need, and to follow the moral law. Your idea of Gods morality being atrocious is plainly false. The passages that you feel are atrocious have an explanation, its just whether you want to hear them or not. As far as natural selection goes, all it cares about is passing on its genes. That is the only criteria for success. This doesn't explain noble behavior in the least, such as sacrificing your life for someone else. That's a bad way to pass on your genes.

5) Which prophecies have been fulfilled? You don't think Israel chose their currency based on the bible instead? Which captivities have been prophecied down to the year and where in the bible?

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


6) This is hardly uncontested. There are parts of the bible that seem to be true, but because some of it is true, does not mean that all of it is. http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/982front.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history#Historical_accuracy_of_biblical_stories

It's positive evidence in the bibles favor when it is verified by archaelogical evidence. There are many things in the bible that historians denied were true in the bible, like the hittite civilization, until archaelogy proved the bible correct.

7) Citation needed. Saying that the universe has a beginning is hardly proof of anything. That's the easy way to say it, anyone apart from earlier theories said that, so of course they did it in there too. In actuality the bible claims that God is eternal, which there is no basis for.

These claims are just claims, there is no basis for saying them in the bible. Blood clotting could be found by trial and error back then, ocean currents can to a great extent be measured by fishermen even back then. Scientists who believed in an eternal universe have since changed their mind, when evidence discredited the theory. It's all about being able to back up your claims. the bible just claims.

This guy discovered and mapped the ocean currents, and he did so being inspired by psalm 8, which is the one that mentions the "paths of the seas"

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

Abraham didn't learn from trial and error. They were doing circumcisions on the 8th day from the beginning.

You must think something is eternal, unless you believe something came from nothing. So your problem isn't really with eternal things, just an eternal person.

Here is a list of them

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scientific_facts_in_the_bible.html

8 ) How did you experience the holy spirit?

It's really impossible quite impossible to describe since it effects every level of your being at the same time, but experientially you could say it's like going from 110 to 220v. It's like you lived all your life being covered in filth and suddenly you're washed off and sparkling clean. It's like being remade into something brand new.

>> ^gwiz665

@enoch
I'm gonna respond as I run through your comments.

To talk about fundamentalism, you have to have a foundation (something holy) to be fundamental about. Secular fundamentalism is a misnomer, but I do know what you mean - militant, head-in-the-sand atheists, who are right no matter what, with nothing to back up their case. Those do exist. Heh, I guess the establishment clause or the constitution might be regarded as sacred in some circles.

I am constantly surprised when otherwise very smart people attest to a faith, or indeed a religion. It's not that they are stupid, but they don't apply critical thinking to their faith, for whatever reason, some say "it's meant to by mysterious", "it can't be analyzed with critical thinking", "it's beyond reason". It is like an alcoholic justifying his addiction.

Of course, the word "faith" may mean different things to different people, so to preemptively judge someone before they've said anything about what it means to them is unfair. "I have faith in love".. well la di dah, that so nice.

Stubbornness is the death of discovery, I completely agree there. "The sun revolves around the earth.. because... YOUR FACE that's why!"

I am very open-minded to new ideas, even though it might not seem like it in my comments here, but that's entirely because no one has yet presented any new ideas with any shred of evidence or backup other than, for instance, the bible which is not a credible source. @shinyblurry, I'm looking at you.

I would love to purge you of your faith, enoch, but I don't want to do it by fire. I want you to essentially do it yourself by looking at the world in amazement, looking at how things work, and so on and so on in the same way as I came to this conclusion myself.

I would agree with Harris that all other things being equal, the world would be better without religion than with it. Not a heaven on earth at all, but better.

Harris and Hitchens do go at religion from different angles. Hitchens attack religion, while Harris is attacking faith. You have to remember their background as well, Hitchens was a historian and journalist, while Harris is a neuroscientist. From a neuroscientist standpoint faith is the interesting part, while from an observational position like a journalist the results of faith and religion is the interesting part. So they go after what they think is interesting.

Daniel Dennett also goes against faith, because he's a cognitive scientist (and a bloody brilliant one at that).

Like arguing about God, arguing about Faith requires a definition of the word, otherwise we all just talk about different things.

"the meat of what you are talking about is the prove/disprove god.
this is a futile argument,for neither side can conclusively prove either position.so just as an intelligent person has to leave the option that god MAY exist (though unlikely in their view),the person of faith has to come to the exact same conclusion but in reverse.
my view is that this argument is a waste of time and produces nothing of value."
This cannot be proved either way, but that does not at all mean the two sides are equal. The argument is a waste of time until someone who claims X exists brings some evidence to the table to back up the claim, until that time the discussion is moot.

Why someone has faith, religion etc. is far more interesting, agreed.

Faith carries a stigma, because it implies a whole lot of things, which is why it is judged very quickly.

I'll concede that I may simply not understand people of faith, I don't see the allure of it. I don't have it and I don't miss it, and essentially I see it as a breach of an otherwise floating reasonable boat. heh. I've still not really seen good results of anyone having faith.

Jefferson wrote about a wall of separation, not a one way door. "Religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God" means just that. Note that the government is not mentioned in that relationship. Further, the idea that homosexuals can't serve in the military has nothing at all to do with the Bible. Even if we accept that the Bible says that homosexual feelings or activity is a sin, there's no mention in the Bible that I'm aware of that says that sinners can't be in the military. If the military wishes to exclude all sinners, then according to many Christians no one could serve at all. But regardless of all that, the Bible is indistinguishable from fiction, and deserves to be treated as such.

As for whether or not the founding fathers were mostly deist, I do need to do more research. Some of your claims point to you being correct. Others aren't relevant.
>> ^shinyblurry:

Since we started turning our back on the Christian god? You mean like when the writer of the Constitution plainly stated that the first amendment was intended to provide a wall of separation between church and state? Or how so many of the founding fathers were deist, not Christian? The foundation surely has nothing to do with marriage, homosexual or otherwise. Just which Christian principles are you claiming America was founded on? And which denomination?
This is what Jefferson wrote, which was not an official government document:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State"
What that obviously means is that it is protecting the church from the government, not the government from the church. The original intention of the establishment clause was to prevent any denomination from becoming the state religion. Since then it has been selectively interpreted to exclude Christianity from public affairs, mostly due to the inclusion of the case law standard.
Where do you get this idea that "so many of the founding fathers" were Deist? You could make a strong case for perhaps 2 or 3 of them. The rest were practicing Christians for which there is ample evidence. 24 of the signers have seminary degrees and one of them was a practicing minister. They opened the first session of congress with a 3 hour prayer and then a bible study. Franklin proposed that they open every congress with prayer at the first constitutional convention and since that time, every session has opened with prayer (until the last few years)
http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html
Do you think Jefferson is a Deist? Why did he write this?:
And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson
Why did he hold church services in the house of representitives?
These were the three main reference materials cited by the framers:
king james bible
spirit of the laws
commentaries laws of england - blackstone, based on ten commandments
The rule of law is based on Gods natural, unchanging law. James madison had the idea for our three branches of government based on Isaiah 33:22. The reason we have checks and balances is because man has a sinful nature and they didn't believe any man could be trusted with power.
The liberty bell is inscribed with leviticus 25:10. In the battle hymm of the republic: "as christ died to make men holy, let us die to make men free"
our constitution was made for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other
John Adams
the bible is the rock on which our republic rests
andrew jackson
Now historians are discovering that the bible, perhaps even more than the constitution, is our founding document
Newsweek 12/27/82
>> ^DrewNumberTwo>> ^DrewNumberTwo

Since we started turning our back on the Christian god? You mean like when the writer of the Constitution plainly stated that the first amendment was intended to provide a wall of separation between church and state? Or how so many of the founding fathers were deist, not Christian? The foundation surely has nothing to do with marriage, homosexual or otherwise. Just which Christian principles are you claiming America was founded on? And which denomination?

This is what Jefferson wrote, which was not an official government document:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State"

What that obviously means is that it is protecting the church from the government, not the government from the church. The original intention of the establishment clause was to prevent any denomination from becoming the state religion. Since then it has been selectively interpreted to exclude Christianity from public affairs, mostly due to the inclusion of the case law standard.

Where do you get this idea that "so many of the founding fathers" were Deist? You could make a strong case for perhaps 2 or 3 of them. The rest were practicing Christians for which there is ample evidence. 24 of the signers have seminary degrees and one of them was a practicing minister. They opened the first session of congress with a 3 hour prayer and then a bible study. Franklin proposed that they open every congress with prayer at the first constitutional convention and since that time, every session has opened with prayer (until the last few years)

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

Do you think Jefferson is a Deist? Why did he write this?:

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson

Why did he hold church services in the house of representitives?

These were the three main reference materials cited by the framers:

king james bible
spirit of the laws
commentaries laws of england - blackstone, based on ten commandments

The rule of law is based on Gods natural, unchanging law. James madison had the idea for our three branches of government based on Isaiah 33:22. The reason we have checks and balances is because man has a sinful nature and they didn't believe any man could be trusted with power.

The liberty bell is inscribed with leviticus 25:10. In the battle hymm of the republic: "as christ died to make men holy, let us die to make men free"

our constitution was made for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other

John Adams

the bible is the rock on which our republic rests

andrew jackson

Now historians are discovering that the bible, perhaps even more than the constitution, is our founding document

Newsweek 12/27/82

>> ^DrewNumberTwo>> ^DrewNumberTwo

It seems Tyson has taken his number from a 1996 study mentioned here:

http://pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx

More than 80 years later, Edward Larson, a historian of science then teaching at the University of Georgia, recreated Leuba's survey, asking the same number of scientists the exact same questions. To the surprise of many, Larson's 1996 poll came up with similar results, finding that 40% of scientists believed in a personal God, while 45% said they did not. Other surveys of scientists have yielded roughly similar results.

Fair enough.

You are a dolt. Red shift is a term referring to the Doppler effect. The Doppler effect is relative to an object and its observer. Of course to us the redshift shows us at the middle, we're the ones observing it. Furthermore I love when christians use science sometimes, but then try to denounce it other times. Fucking dummies.

How can you be so oblivious that you actually believe Universes just happen by themselves? How is it that you failed to notice the design inherent in every little thing? Why do you love sin and hate the truth?

Ok, so you don't understand things...let's just throw a magician in the mix and all is answers. "Magnets, how the fuck do they work?" Must be magic, right? Oh no, we have an answer for that. And you're probably satisfied with that answer as it's commonplace and it doesn't contradict your belief in god.

I experience the presence of God in my life at all times, which is due to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. That alone confirms every word Jesus said is true. Jesus and the Father are separate people, but one God..have you ever read the bible? Perhaps if you educated yourself instead of mindlessly repeating stupid atheist memes and arguing from your own ignorance as to what is in it, we could have an intelligent discussion about it.

As if you're not repeating shitty christian rhetoric. BTW, I've tried to read the bible...discovered I have a better time reading something good. That's right, your book fucking sucks. That's the biggest shame: it's not even fucking entertaining. I can't get passed genesis without getting angry that people literally believe that bullshit. Maybe you're right though, maybe I should waste my time on that crappy book. I mean I need something fictional in between all the technical stuff I'm reading.

Do you not see the mania of your antitheism? Now you decry the founders because of their belief in God as being stupid and worthless, even though they were men of valor and obvious intellect who were willing to sacrifice their lives for the principles of freedom, and personal liberty. Obviously their deeply held faith in God was a positive contribution to their character and drive, and the founding principles of this nation, yet, you dismiss them all as morons, even as you enjoy the freedoms they made possible. Talk about twisted. They gave it all to God, and what we have today is through Gods blessing. As Frank Turek says, you have to sit in Gods lap to slap His face.

Ok, the whole founding fathers being Christian, deal. You've probably read plenty of places that they were christian and I've probably read plenty places that they weren't. It probably has to do with where we're searching, and I'm positive that there's plenty of evidence on both cases (there's not, but I'm being nice). But guess what...I wasn't there. Neither were you. And I know it's easy for you to make up your mind about something based on little to no evidence. I do know that there is NOT.ONE.MENTION.OF.GOD in the constitution. So you're a christian, tell me, would you put the word of god in a constitution if you were writing one? probably would.

Here's the deal with your "truth", shiny...your "truth" comes from an ancient text written thousands of years ago by man. Your entire "truth" is founded on the premise that the book is the word of a god. If one thing in that book is flawed, it compromises the entire premise. So you see, if you're intelligent enough, you should know that understanding science that has explained the world as different than the bible creates a conflict of interest for you. On the other hand, science is the act of testing a premise through the collection of data to form a conclusion. Science is wrong constantly, but every consecutive time it's wrong, it's more right than the time before. It doesn't base itself on the premise that it HAS to be right.




>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm no mathematician, I'm only studying to be one...but 24 isn't even half of 56.
No, it is about 43 percent, which still reflects the religious convinction of the signers. I believe all them except three were acknowledged to be practicing Christians.
Oh and also, thanks for your blinded view of the world...of course you only see this shit-hole country.
Ahh, another far-leftie who hates America..what a surprise. How about we parachute you into North Korea and see how you do there?
As far as the rest of this planet, that sits at the tip of an arm in our spiraling galaxy in a vast sea of nothingness,
Red shift quantization indicates that the Milky Way is at the center of the Universe.

your shit religion only preoccupies a third of its inhabitants.
And also built western civilization. Maybe you could take some time off from burning American flags and educate yourself:
http://www.amazon.com/Book-that-Made-Your-World/dp/1595553223
Your view of the world is so fucking skewed. How do you live through life spinning the truth into your twisted deluded bullshit factory you call a brain. For fuck's sake. You really think this entire fucking universe was created for YOUR dumbass?
How can you be so oblivious that you actually believe Universes just happen by themselves? How is it that you failed to notice the design inherent in every little thing? Why do you love sin and hate the truth?
So that you can come and argue with people about some guy you've never fucking met that apparently did something you never fucking saw who was both the son and the same as some magical sky man?
I experience the presence of God in my life at all times, which is due to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. That alone confirms every word Jesus said is true. Jesus and the Father are separate people, but one God..have you ever read the bible? Perhaps if you educated yourself instead of mindlessly repeating stupid atheist memes and arguing from your own ignorance as to what is in it, we could have an intelligent discussion about it.
Are you a fucking adult? Are you a grown human being with actual ability to reason. What the fuck does it matter what some dummies thought 200 years ago? The majority of them were just as stupid as 80% of the US is now.
Do you not see the mania of your antitheism? Now you decry the founders because of their belief in God as being stupid and worthless, even though they were men of valor and obvious intellect who were willing to sacrifice their lives for the principles of freedom, and personal liberty. Obviously their deeply held faith in God was a positive contribution to their character and drive, and the founding principles of this nation, yet, you dismiss them all as morons, even as you enjoy the freedoms they made possible. Talk about twisted. They gave it all to God, and what we have today is through Gods blessing. As Frank Turek says, you have to sit in Gods lap to slap His face.
BTW, the tenacity of belief and the volume of those that believe in those beliefs NEVER qualifies as substantial evidence for its validity.
Neither does scoffing and mocking substitute for reason or substance.

>> ^rottenseed:
I'm no mathematician, I'm only studying to be one...but 24 isn't even half of 56. Oh and also, thanks for your blinded view of the world...of course you only see this shit-hole country. As far as the rest of this planet, that sits at the tip of an arm in our spiraling galaxy in a vast sea of nothingness, your shit religion only preoccupies a third of its inhabitants. Your view of the world is so fucking skewed. How do you live through life spinning the truth into your twisted deluded bullshit factory you call a brain. For fuck's sake. You really think this entire fucking universe was created for YOUR dumbass? So that you can come and argue with people about some guy you've never fucking met that apparently did something you never fucking saw who was both the son and the same as some magical sky man? Are you a fucking adult? Are you a grown human being with actual ability to reason. What the fuck does it matter what some dummies thought 200 years ago? The majority of them were just as stupid as 80% of the US is now.
BTW, the tenacity of belief and the volume of those that believe in those beliefs NEVER qualifies as substantial evidence for its validity. >> ^shinyblurry:
This country was founded by Christians, and judeo-christian principles. 24 out of the 56 signers of the declaration of independence had seminary degrees, and some of them were ministers. The first meeting of the constitutional congress opened with a 3 hour prayer and a bible study. The reason we have "checks and balances" is because the founders knew all men are sinners and can't be trusted with power. James Madison got the idea for our three branches of government from Isaiah 33:22. This idea that this country has ever been secular in any sense is ridiculous. While some presidents may have been pandering, we are a Christian nation, and that is why we elect Christian leaders. Around 80 percent of us self-identify as Christian, and around 90 percent profess a belief in a higher power. Only around 13 percent of the country believes in darwinian evolution without any divine intervention, which is the reason why we won't have any atheists in the office anytime soon.
Newsweek
Now historians are discovering that the bible, perhaps even more than the constitution, is our founding document
12/27/82
>> ^Diogenes:
well, as the link infers... probably right from the start
i just find it difficult to agree with penn in that the umbrella term 'christian' began to flourish in the 1970s, and because of some sort of 'planning'
i mean, we know simply from the etymology of the word that it was used long, long ago... at first disparagingly by non-christians, and then embraced a few hundred years later as different assemblies used it to self identify
i think those who run for office are canny by nature, and it's probably second nature for them to understand that to garner more votes, they must present an inclusive image, rather than divisive

I'm no mathematician, I'm only studying to be one...but 24 isn't even half of 56.

No, it is about 43 percent, which still reflects the religious convinction of the signers. I believe all them except three were acknowledged to be practicing Christians.

Oh and also, thanks for your blinded view of the world...of course you only see this shit-hole country.

Ahh, another far-leftie who hates America..what a surprise. How about we parachute you into North Korea and see how you do there?

As far as the rest of this planet, that sits at the tip of an arm in our spiraling galaxy in a vast sea of nothingness,

Red shift quantization indicates that the Milky Way is at the center of the Universe.



your shit religion only preoccupies a third of its inhabitants.

And also built western civilization. Maybe you could take some time off from burning American flags and educate yourself:

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

Your view of the world is so fucking skewed. How do you live through life spinning the truth into your twisted deluded bullshit factory you call a brain. For fuck's sake. You really think this entire fucking universe was created for YOUR dumbass?

How can you be so oblivious that you actually believe Universes just happen by themselves? How is it that you failed to notice the design inherent in every little thing? Why do you love sin and hate the truth?

So that you can come and argue with people about some guy you've never fucking met that apparently did something you never fucking saw who was both the son and the same as some magical sky man?

I experience the presence of God in my life at all times, which is due to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. That alone confirms every word Jesus said is true. Jesus and the Father are separate people, but one God..have you ever read the bible? Perhaps if you educated yourself instead of mindlessly repeating stupid atheist memes and arguing from your own ignorance as to what is in it, we could have an intelligent discussion about it.

Are you a fucking adult? Are you a grown human being with actual ability to reason. What the fuck does it matter what some dummies thought 200 years ago? The majority of them were just as stupid as 80% of the US is now.

Do you not see the mania of your antitheism? Now you decry the founders because of their belief in God as being stupid and worthless, even though they were men of valor and obvious intellect who were willing to sacrifice their lives for the principles of freedom, and personal liberty. Obviously their deeply held faith in God was a positive contribution to their character and drive, and the founding principles of this nation, yet, you dismiss them all as morons, even as you enjoy the freedoms they made possible. Talk about twisted. They gave it all to God, and what we have today is through Gods blessing. As Frank Turek says, you have to sit in Gods lap to slap His face.

BTW, the tenacity of belief and the volume of those that believe in those beliefs NEVER qualifies as substantial evidence for its validity.

Neither does scoffing and mocking substitute for reason or substance.


>> ^rottenseed:
I'm no mathematician, I'm only studying to be one...but 24 isn't even half of 56. Oh and also, thanks for your blinded view of the world...of course you only see this shit-hole country. As far as the rest of this planet, that sits at the tip of an arm in our spiraling galaxy in a vast sea of nothingness, your shit religion only preoccupies a third of its inhabitants. Your view of the world is so fucking skewed. How do you live through life spinning the truth into your twisted deluded bullshit factory you call a brain. For fuck's sake. You really think this entire fucking universe was created for YOUR dumbass? So that you can come and argue with people about some guy you've never fucking met that apparently did something you never fucking saw who was both the son and the same as some magical sky man? Are you a fucking adult? Are you a grown human being with actual ability to reason. What the fuck does it matter what some dummies thought 200 years ago? The majority of them were just as stupid as 80% of the US is now.
BTW, the tenacity of belief and the volume of those that believe in those beliefs NEVER qualifies as substantial evidence for its validity. >> ^shinyblurry:
This country was founded by Christians, and judeo-christian principles. 24 out of the 56 signers of the declaration of independence had seminary degrees, and some of them were ministers. The first meeting of the constitutional congress opened with a 3 hour prayer and a bible study. The reason we have "checks and balances" is because the founders knew all men are sinners and can't be trusted with power. James Madison got the idea for our three branches of government from Isaiah 33:22. This idea that this country has ever been secular in any sense is ridiculous. While some presidents may have been pandering, we are a Christian nation, and that is why we elect Christian leaders. Around 80 percent of us self-identify as Christian, and around 90 percent profess a belief in a higher power. Only around 13 percent of the country believes in darwinian evolution without any divine intervention, which is the reason why we won't have any atheists in the office anytime soon.
Newsweek
Now historians are discovering that the bible, perhaps even more than the constitution, is our founding document
12/27/82
>> ^Diogenes:
well, as the link infers... probably right from the start
i just find it difficult to agree with penn in that the umbrella term 'christian' began to flourish in the 1970s, and because of some sort of 'planning'
i mean, we know simply from the etymology of the word that it was used long, long ago... at first disparagingly by non-christians, and then embraced a few hundred years later as different assemblies used it to self identify
i think those who run for office are canny by nature, and it's probably second nature for them to understand that to garner more votes, they must present an inclusive image, rather than divisive

I'm no mathematician, I'm only studying to be one...but 24 isn't even half of 56. Oh and also, thanks for your blinded view of the world...of course you only see this shit-hole country. As far as the rest of this planet, that sits at the tip of an arm in our spiraling galaxy in a vast sea of nothingness, your shit religion only preoccupies a third of its inhabitants. Your view of the world is so fucking skewed. How do you live through life spinning the truth into your twisted deluded bullshit factory you call a brain. For fuck's sake. You really think this entire fucking universe was created for YOUR dumbass? So that you can come and argue with people about some guy you've never fucking met that apparently did something you never fucking saw who was both the son and the same as some magical sky man? Are you a fucking adult? Are you a grown human being with actual ability to reason. What the fuck does it matter what some dummies thought 200 years ago? The majority of them were just as stupid as 80% of the US is now.

BTW, the tenacity of belief and the volume of those that believe in those beliefs NEVER qualifies as substantial evidence for its validity. >> ^shinyblurry:

This country was founded by Christians, and judeo-christian principles. 24 out of the 56 signers of the declaration of independence had seminary degrees, and some of them were ministers. The first meeting of the constitutional congress opened with a 3 hour prayer and a bible study. The reason we have "checks and balances" is because the founders knew all men are sinners and can't be trusted with power. James Madison got the idea for our three branches of government from Isaiah 33:22. This idea that this country has ever been secular in any sense is ridiculous. While some presidents may have been pandering, we are a Christian nation, and that is why we elect Christian leaders. Around 80 percent of us self-identify as Christian, and around 90 percent profess a belief in a higher power. Only around 13 percent of the country believes in darwinian evolution without any divine intervention, which is the reason why we won't have any atheists in the office anytime soon.
Newsweek
Now historians are discovering that the bible, perhaps even more than the constitution, is our founding document
12/27/82
>> ^Diogenes:
well, as the link infers... probably right from the start
i just find it difficult to agree with penn in that the umbrella term 'christian' began to flourish in the 1970s, and because of some sort of 'planning'
i mean, we know simply from the etymology of the word that it was used long, long ago... at first disparagingly by non-christians, and then embraced a few hundred years later as different assemblies used it to self identify
i think those who run for office are canny by nature, and it's probably second nature for them to understand that to garner more votes, they must present an inclusive image, rather than divisive

You, sir, don't know much about our history. btw, the word Christian appears in the bible

>> ^Diogenes:

you, sir, are full of dumb>> ^shinyblurry:
This country was founded by Christians, and judeo-christian principles. 24 out of the 56 signers of the declaration of independence had seminary degrees, and some of them were ministers. The first meeting of the constitutional congress opened with a 3 hour prayer and a bible study. The reason we have "checks and balances" is because the founders knew all men are sinners and can't be trusted with power. James Madison got the idea for our three branches of government from Isaiah 33:22. This idea that this country has ever been secular in any sense is ridiculous. While some presidents may have been pandering, we are a Christian nation, and that is why we elect Christian leaders. Around 80 percent of us self-identify as Christian, and around 90 percent profess a belief in a higher power. Only around 13 percent of the country believes in darwinian evolution without any divine intervention, which is the reason why we won't have any atheists in the office anytime soon.
Newsweek
Now historians are discovering that the bible, perhaps even more than the constitution, is our founding document
12/27/82
>> ^Diogenes:
well, as the link infers... probably right from the start
i just find it difficult to agree with penn in that the umbrella term 'christian' began to flourish in the 1970s, and because of some sort of 'planning'
i mean, we know simply from the etymology of the word that it was used long, long ago... at first disparagingly by non-christians, and then embraced a few hundred years later as different assemblies used it to self identify
i think those who run for office are canny by nature, and it's probably second nature for them to understand that to garner more votes, they must present an inclusive image, rather than divisive

you, sir, are full of dumb>> ^shinyblurry:
This country was founded by Christians, and judeo-christian principles. 24 out of the 56 signers of the declaration of independence had seminary degrees, and some of them were ministers. The first meeting of the constitutional congress opened with a 3 hour prayer and a bible study. The reason we have "checks and balances" is because the founders knew all men are sinners and can't be trusted with power. James Madison got the idea for our three branches of government from Isaiah 33:22. This idea that this country has ever been secular in any sense is ridiculous. While some presidents may have been pandering, we are a Christian nation, and that is why we elect Christian leaders. Around 80 percent of us self-identify as Christian, and around 90 percent profess a belief in a higher power. Only around 13 percent of the country believes in darwinian evolution without any divine intervention, which is the reason why we won't have any atheists in the office anytime soon.
Newsweek
Now historians are discovering that the bible, perhaps even more than the constitution, is our founding document
12/27/82
>> ^Diogenes:
well, as the link infers... probably right from the start
i just find it difficult to agree with penn in that the umbrella term 'christian' began to flourish in the 1970s, and because of some sort of 'planning'
i mean, we know simply from the etymology of the word that it was used long, long ago... at first disparagingly by non-christians, and then embraced a few hundred years later as different assemblies used it to self identify
i think those who run for office are canny by nature, and it's probably second nature for them to understand that to garner more votes, they must present an inclusive image, rather than divisive