posted January 07, 2007 05:48 PM            

Substitute Jew, or the N-word, for “fundamentalist”; we’ve heard the same argument before.

Are you that simple minded, Erik?
You list massive diversity in belief, then assume all those labeled, “fundamentalist”, are alike.

Erik, you behave like a “fundamentalist.”
You "want" to take "power and influence in the community" away from the unenlightened. You "are dangerous because" you "think" you "have " enlightenment "on" your " side, and therefore” you ”can apply any means for" your end", including" petty name calling.

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

posted January 07, 2007 06:25 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Donald Darden:
If that seems insubstantial to you, keep in mind that there is
much solace in believing in God.

---

Ah, Religion - the endorphin of the soul!

posted January 07, 2007 06:25 PM            

Either you avoided my question, or in my stupidity I didn't see it in your ramblings.

What exactly did you hope to accomplish by this post? What opinion do you think hasn't been expressed here (to death) and/or who's opinion are you hoping to change.

Or was the intent basically to stir things up a bit?

Really, I'd like to understand your motivation behind this.

posted January 07, 2007 08:19 PM            

quote:

---

not only portrays the "psychotic" God of the Old Testament
as "arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous
and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a
vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic,
racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential,
megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully"
(p. 31),

---

I find this extremely offensive (and I'm not even a Christian)!!!

PLEASE delete this topic.

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

posted January 07, 2007 09:15 PM            

Further , I don't find the concept offensive either. What IS offensive is the twisted interpretations of "God" that most modern religions adhere to. If you want to look at God as the vengeful being that will send sinners to hell for the rest of eternity, that's fine. But don't go around with that philosophy and propagate the idea that you are the moral compass for the masses.

I think we need more strong assertions like the one referenced to shake people out of the preposterous fundamentalist philosophies that have our world in a tailspin.

posted January 07, 2007 09:58 PM            

The problem I see here, is that there can only be one intent for a post like this and that is to insight division and contention.

We've had (many) disagreements in the past, and I think its pretty clear on which side those of us who partake of these discussions fall on. I can't think of a new argument to be waged for either side.

Should anyone want to further discuss the existence or non-existence of God, moral right or wrong, value or problems of "fundamentalism", etc. it could easily be done without posting slanderous sources or doing so in such an absolute manor greatly exceeding cockiness and arrogance.

Again, the only reason I can fathom for the initial post in this thread is to insight a riot of words with no intent to provide value, just ridicule.

posted January 08, 2007 04:13 AM            

John Fitz puts it very well:

quote:

---

to shake people out of the preposterous fundamentalist philosophies that have our world in a tailspin.

---

quote:

---

Ah, Religion - the endorphin of the soul!

---

posted January 08, 2007 04:37 AM            

quote:

---

Intelligent design is an inevitable conclusion for anyone who is deeply religious. Being religious, for me, is an irrational state.

---

quote:

---

Evolution may be subject to intelligent scrutiny but it is not intelligent of itself.

---

posted January 08, 2007 04:47 AM            

quote:

---

Some of you are requesting the purpose. If you are in doubt, you have not read my posts. ....

---

I am fiercely opposed to censorship in this forum (other than blatant rule breaking which this is very close to but perhaps not past), but I am totally in favor of personal censoring so this is the last reply you'll get from me.

posted January 08, 2007 05:31 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian Cairns:
So now we Christians are terrorists?

---

Let's put it that way: Believers in any monotheistic supernatural are per their believes ("There's only one true god") more dangerous than others.

It was the great strenght (and insight) of the Roman Empire to not force the conquered people to pray to the roman gods and let them keep their own gods, even interchange gods with other cultures. This was a keypoint for the long duration of the Roman Empire.

posted January 08, 2007 05:37 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Luick:
Of all those who believe or not who post here, have read the bible (King James) front to back.

---

I was forced to do so in my childhood. As I never believed in a god, I found it most of the time quite boring. There were some nice "action stories" in it, though. And of course, it has some nice metaphers and could make quite an above average philosophical book if you take away all the religious "mambo jambo".

Of course, it wasn't the "King James bible". In Germany the equivalent is the "(Martin) Luther bible". He was the one who translated the bible from latin to german, making it possible that everyone (capable of reading) could read the bible and therefore judging the book themselves, whereas before only the clerus could read the bible.

Knuth

posted January 08, 2007 06:09 AM            

quote:

---

I am totally in favor of personal censoring

---

So much for democracy and freedom of speech.

posted January 08, 2007 06:44 AM            

quote:

---

Evolution and the principles and laws behind it are intelligent enough to have created an intelligent person like you.

---

Evolution now has principles and laws and intelligence and creates?

You’re starting to sound nutty, Erik.

quote:

---

Believers in any monotheistic supernatural are per their believes ("There's only one true god") more dangerous than others.

---

Little more zinc in the diet, Knuth.

No point in arguing.
Apparently some of you aren’t capable of realizing you are graphically displaying that which you say you oppose; narrow-minded, total intolerance to anyone who opposes your perceived view of the-only-correct-way.

At least you came out of the closet and quit pretending you were having a scientific discussion.
Now it is just a good old hate baiting bitch-fest. (which we knew it was all along)

Bitch on.

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

posted January 08, 2007 06:54 AM            

quote:

---

It was the great strenght (and insight) of the Roman Empire to not force the conquered people to pray to the roman gods and let them keep their own gods, even interchange gods with other cultures. This was a keypoint for the long duration of the Roman Empire.

---