Gene Frenkle

The irony is that the demand is likely brought about by an evolutionary advantage to "needing to belong to a larger group". Groups working together were more successful than individuals over time, and that's why this human trait won out. Evolution begets Evolution denial. Given that, this need does not make necessarily people "weak" (which I never said) or maybe even "stupid". It does however make most people intellectually dishonest or at least emotionally incapable of questioning what they've been taught to believe. Such people allow their basic instinct and inborn-tendencies to dominate their rational mind. My hope is that this type of dialog prompts people to wake and at least consider seeing things as they are and not just wholly accept stories from some ancient book. People hiding behind god, invoking god to justify their actions or controlling the masses with the name of god is the problem.

Right, the "what's the harm?" argument. I agree with you right up until that part because I see most of the world's major problems rooted in organized religion. Religion has absolute authority and the power to control. In the absence of a god, men wield that power to meet their own often-twisted goals. For example, I think it would have been more difficult for Father Murphy to rape 200 deaf boys if he didn't have the backing of "god": http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/23/deaf-victim-of-sex-abuse-is-suing-pope-and-going-public-with-his-story-for-the-first-time/?hpt=C1

Ok, I'll play along... It's just their steadfast belief in the face of overwhelming evidence that is quite stupid IMO. vs. It's just their steadfast belief despite a complete lack of evidence that is quite stupid IMO. I guess, but you're really getting picky here...is this a 'I was right' kind of thing? Thank god there are fewer believers than I thought! I doubt you'll find a post of mine claiming that religion is anything more than a matter of "faith" or something than can be proved or disproved. Without any evidence, why do people feel the need to introduce a complex being called god into the equation and just assume its existence?

I should do better research - I've heard that number thrown around so much. I now have slightly increased faith in my fellow Americans.

You say you're a non-believer. With that in mind, breaking it down, it seems to me that your argument is: It is not stupid to believe that a fairy tale is true. It is not stupid to believe that a story lacking any evidence is the most important thing imaginable. I guess when I see it like that, it's really just a subjective argument. I believe that those two statements are false. There's not really much point in arguing a subjective point.

Backpedaled? Please! My assertion is that religious people believe in fantastical notions despite a complete lack of evidence. I could as easily have modified the Truther statement to read: It's just their steadfast belief despite a complete lack of evidence that is quite stupid IMO. Strangely, that's exactly what I said about religious people. How is that backpedaling again? Booster, with 90% of the country believing in god, how does "people of all stripes telling me that I'm being obstinate" have any bearing on reality? Of course people are going to disagree with what I'm saying. It threatens their belief system and everything they were brought up to believe in. None of that changes what is, however. Now you guys are free to attack my character or try to pick apart little bits of how I'm making my point, but neither will do anything to advance your position, whatever that might be. In the end, I'd love for someone to show me one shred of evidence that god exists. Anything else you have to say about it is simply background noise and diversion. It is not my job to prove your extraordinary claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. - Carl Sagan

No, I agree, but that's about the only thing I could think of for "good caused by organized religion". If it weren't for the countless atrocities, wars, abuses and scandals I might sign up.

None taken, I guess...can you give some examples of where I'm not being reasonable? I appreciate your opinion, but why not attack my logic and reasoning instead of my character?

It depends on who's word we're talking about. You think that the printing press would not have been invented were it not for the Bible?

Any ill done in-the-name-of or facilitated-by unsupported nonsense is too much. You again assume that religion causes people to do good or evil, which I disagree with. Religion may facilitate good and evil, and my argument is that it has facilitated more evil than good throughout history.

All well and good, if one assumes that morals come from religion. I'd argue that our morals are hard-wired through evolution. Unlike the religious view, my view is supported by evidence. Ok, people !@#$ things up all the time - why do we need to bring religion into it? How do you know what a good way of living is? If you go into the teachings of the bible, koran or other religious books you will see that they all teach very, very similar morals - which supports the idea that morals are hard-wired and have little to do with religion. Religion provides a powerful tool for these types of people to control the true believers in a cult-like fashion. How very lofty and ethereal. You assume that many people would have little structure to their lives without religion based on...? I can easily provide concrete evidence of all the harm that religion has done, where's yours? Most people don't need religious structure, whether they want to admit it or not. You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake.. Your non-acceptance of what you see as the "order from chaos" aspect of Evolution is based on the fact that it doesn't makes sense to you? Ever read up on Quantum Mechanics? I'd imagine that you have some concept of the trouble human beings have thinking about really big numbers, like say the billions of years that life has been evolving on Earth. Natural Selection based on random mutations makes a lot of sense over such large timelines. My opinion is that many of the people who reject aspects of Evolution do so because they cannot comprehend what "billions of years" implies. Again, morals are hard-wired. People with bad wiring do immoral things, religious or not. You fail to account for the possiblilty that moral behavior has nothing to do with religion, which does not indicate outside-the-box thinking on your part. Are you talking about abused Catholic school boys or Islamic girls with acid on their faces? I'm a relatively happy person, and if anything an optimist. Way to stereotype the non-believer.

Wow, have a good day dude.

What I spend my time talking about is irrelevant. Are you seriously suggesting that religion has done more good than harm throughout history? Seriously???

No, I would have to modify the 911 Truther statement to fit religious folks. Something like: It's just their steadfast belief despite a complete lack of evidence that is quite stupid IMO. You can call me intolerant or a one-trick pony or whatever, but that doesn't make that last statement any less true. Again, I'll go back to my "one trick": Think about how effed up all this religious strife and drama appears to a non-believer. I think it's completely rational to be intolerant of people who start wars, kill, do harm to others, discriminate and reject science based on some effing fairy tale. Please tell me why I should be tolerant of these things.

Not stupid people per se. Similar to 911 Truthers, religious people aren't necessarily stupid about most things. It's just their steadfast belief in the face of overwhelming evidence that is quite stupid IMO.

My Catholophobia perverts prevents me from allowing my sons to go anywhere near a Catholic priest.

You mean to say that people who fanatically believe in fairy tales are crazy? Holy crap!

Jesus, you're one to talk... Totally aside, do you think Palin is capable of saying anything so intelligent?

The government better not tell me what to do except when it comes abortion and drugs.

"War zone troops are required to burn all trash, according to the Defense Department." LOL

Right...because you all are so different.

With the Clinton thing - I agree that perjury is a serious crime. It's a shame the issue was clouded with the adultery crap, because he was almost certainly guilty of perjury. With the Mosque thing - what are we debating? People have a right to protest and say just about anything they like because, of course, that's a Constitutional right as well (the same one, actually). To me - and this is simply my opinion - It just reeks of bigotry and ignorance, so I don't really care what these people think and of course, legally speaking, it doesn't really matter what they think. I've said it before - they'd be better off building a strip club than a Mosque or whatever, but not for the reasons these fools are debating and protesting.

I guess it depends on which Constitutional rights you think it's ok to take away from Americans based on the opinions of other Americans, be it a majority or otherwise. IMO, the answer is 'none', which makes me view this as a Constitutional issue which is being clouded by irrelevant opinions.

Nice...that is what I meant - think what you will. But...you're wrong... Clinton's adultery (subjective right vs. wrong) is to Clinton's perjury (the law) as The good vs. bad intentions associated with building the mosque/islamic center (subjective right vs. wrong) are to the right to build a mosque/islamic center (the Constitution)