in Uncategorized

How to Measure a Religion’s Stupidity

My newest friend Nick Smith has responded to me once again! He ignored my “can’t we all get along” message and fired back with the following:

On Jan 10, 2013, at 8:39 PM, Nick Smith <nicksmith382@yahoo.com> wrote:
I knew you’d be dumb enough to respond. I once tricked a Mormon girl into having sex with me inside a Mormon church where her father worked, so I guess I’m not that surprised at your stupidity.

 

confused_MAN_swf

Is he really saying what I think he’s saying?

“Those Mormons! They’re so stupid! How stupid, you ask? Why, they’ll even have sex with ME!”

Such low-hanging fruit! So do I continue the snark, or do I try to actually live my religion and be nice to the guy? This time, I choose the latter.

My response to his response:

From: Stallion Cornell <XXX@XXXXXXXX.com>
To: Nick Smith <nicksmithXXX@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 11:22 PM Subject: Re:

That’s nothing. I once tricked a Mormon girl into marrying me. So I win. But thanks.

Which produced this reply:

From: Nick Smith <nicksmithXXX@yahoo.com>
To: Stallion Cornell <XXX@XXXXXXXXX.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 10:04 PM
Subject: Re:

Killing with kindness? Yeah, that oughta work. Coming from a guy who’s cult leader was tarred and feathered like a maniac, I guess one must show courage

Okay, gloves are off now.

From: Stallion Cornell <XXX@XXXXXXXXX.com>
To: Nick Smith <nicksmithXXX@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 10:17 PM
Subject: Re:

Indeed! Surely kindness is the appropriate response to someone who correlates a religion’s stupidity with its adherents’ willingness to have sex with him. (I, for one, am unwilling to have sex with you.)

XXOO,

Stallion

And then, thinking about it some more, I wrote this…

From: Stallion Cornell <XXX@XXXXXXXXX.com>
To: Nick Smith <nicksmithXXX@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 10:26 PM
Subject: Re:

Thinking about it a little more, I recommend that you look into Catholicism. Unlike the Mormon girl you defiled, I’m sure no Catholic would be stupid enough to have sex with you.

Cheers!

Stallion

No response as of yet. I’ll keep you posted.

Cult Mormon Thoughts
10th Grade Stallion

Leave a Reply

41 Comments

  1. Well… I have question?

    Why would anyone be dumb enough to follow any religion? All of them are absurd. Oh my house is shaking I’ve got to be getting a message from God! Sure… Oh, I’m a just a simple camel dung salesman and wait GOD wants me to be his Prophet– Sure… I’m just a poor boy from poor family born in a stable– oh, did I mention Mama is a virgin? Oh, sure you are. God sent an angel to me to tell me about the lost tribe of Israelites that made their way to the New World– then they became them strange injuns! Oh, but did I forget to mention I cannot read or write!

    What is interesting is that God seems to like people who are not filled full of that book-learning does? I mean Joseph and Muhummad both illiterate. And God isn’t so clear about owning people– you know he never says THOU SHALL NOT OWN THEY NEIGHBOR AFTER WAR OR FINICAL RUIN… Yet, oddly he’s pretty big on the not coveting thy neighbor’s wife or property– because those are bad things to do; but, conquering your neighbor and owning them as slaves? AWESOME!

    The only thing holding humans back is religion.

      • Wasn’t it those religious moral people that lied and cheated and broke the law and caused the greatest recession in like 80 years?

          • What I was getting at was that if individuals on wall street, in the real estate industry, Bernie Madoff, etc. regardless of what church they belong to or whether they even belong to one (or even if they believe in God or not)– regardless of all of that, if those individuals had actually followed what religion actually taught (don’t bear false witness, don’t steal, I am my brother’s keeper, etc.) then chances are we wouldn’t be in the economic mess we’re in.

    • I don’t even pretend to know what that means, or why I would like it. There is nothing rational, for instance, about altruism, yet that’s precisely what most religion encourages. Experiments where religion is banished altogether have resulted in the deaths of untold millions.

      From my perspective, religion holds us back from behaving like beasts. On the whole, it has produced a better world than we would have in its absence.

      • Wow, you must not be big into history…
        The Thirty Years’ War cost Europe the lives of 10,000,000 people.
        The Huguenot conflicts in France, another 3-4 million.
        The Sudanese Civil War has been said to have inflicted more casualties than any other conflict since WW2, around 2 million.
        The Crusades brought about the wanton slaughter of 3 million in the ‘Holy’ Land.
        It is estimated that the Aztecs murdered 250,000 annually in their rituals.
        When the Inquisition swept across Europe, it took hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of innocent people with it.
        More recently, in the idyllic-sounding location of Mountain Meadows, UT, 120 brave settlers trying to make new lives for themselves and their families in California were butchered by proud members of your Mormon faith, under the direction of Brigham Young, simply for being non-Mormon outsiders.

        What all these things have in common is of course that they are all examples of men compelled to the greatest evils imaginable by religion. Religion has been used to justify more suffering and despicable, reprehensible acts of savagery than any one other thing in our history. I could list wars and genocides like these all day… the cumulative death toll is unfathomable.

        Your faith is nothing but an instrument of manipulation. Your religions are naught but catalysts of conflict. Considering these very real truths that I’ve mentioned, and the countless ones that I haven’t, I would say I’m pretty disturbed by your idea of a ‘better world’. I bet all those millions of innocent victims massacred through the ages might be inclined to disagree with you.

          • Wow, nice attempt at a deflection there. It doesn’t change a thing about the validity of what I’ve said.

            There are so many factors that increase the gravity of the things I’ve mentioned. Here are a few:

            – The casualty rates of the past conflicts I’ve mentioned are far higher when you consider the much lower populations and population densities of societies in the relevant time periods. Most of the countries involved directly or indirectly in the Thirty Years’ War lost 40-75% of their populations, for example.
            – The 20th century in particular has yielded advances in transportation that have facilitated much more rapid force deployment, greatly increasing the rate and scale on which conflicts can take place.
            – Weaponry in the 20th century includes force multipliers like automatic weapons, aircraft, guided missiles, and chemical/biological/nuclear weapons. These greatly increase the lethality of any conflict and the rate at which casualties will be accrued.

            With all that being said, it makes it all the more apparent just how serious and terrible the past onslaughts really were. I shudder to think what would happen if a determined Tomas de Torquemada or Catherine de Medici existed today, with all the tools of destruction now available to them to spread their religiously-motivated evil.

            Compare godless 20th century conflicts with what I have mentioned all you want. It does nothing to change the fact that religion has been a greater motivator for evil than pretty much anything else in human history. I’m sure if religion had never been invented, we would have still found other things to fight about, but it says a lot about religious people through the ages when they have been able to justify so much desolation and disregard for the tangible dignity of human life by willingly annihilating it in the name of their god(s).

          • Not a deflection at all. You even concede that without religion, we’d have found “other things to fight about.” That we did. The 20th Century proves that the absence of religion does not equate to the absence of aggression, and tyrants are more than happy to use whatever pretext is available to them to advance their power, whether sacred or secular. A godless world, where all morality is an arbitrary construct and has no religious foundation whatsoever, would not be a more peaceful one.

            Saying the world would better off without religion because people have misused it for evil is like saying the world would be better off without marriage because there’s such a thing as rape.

          • You are failing to recognize or unwilling to discuss the point I am making, and attempting to address a different point. That’s deflection in my book. ;)

            The point I am making is addressing religion itself, not political motivation, or desires of personal gain, or anything else that would motivate someone else to commit an atrocity. You are not addressing the point I am making. You are attempting to compare apples to oranges.

            Please provide a rebuttal for the point I have made that religion has been a greater motivation and justification for people to commit acts of evil than most others in history. I am not contending that people would find other things to fight about. I am not contending that the absence of religion wouldn’t magically pacify everyone. I am saying that religion itself has been a great motivation/excuse/whatever you want to call it, one accepted without hesitation by other religious people from one society to the next when it’s time to get down to butchery. No need to rebut things I’m not even trying to prove or that I don’t disagree with. I just want you to look at the evidence and have the rational realization that I’m right without your own faith interfering with your logic.

          • “The point I am making is addressing religion itself, not political motivation, or desires of personal gain, or anything else that would motivate someone else to commit an atrocity.”

            You don’t seem to understand your own point. If you concede that the absence of religion wouldn’t lessen atrocity, then religion isn’t the unique motivator of evil you claim it to be. More likely it is simply masking political motivations, desires of personal gain, or some other agenda. Take away the religious pretext for violence, and something else takes its place.

            On the flipside of the coin, take away religion and you lose the universal moral framework that has limited atrocities by its proper application. The world is a better place because people believe it necessary to be morally accountable to God.

          • Where are you getting this notion that I think religion is a “unique” motivator of evil exactly? The statements I’ve made so far would indicate anything but. Religion is not unique in that it has been used as a motivator for evil. Let me say that again, since you seem to be having trouble following me, or are simply hell-bent on misquoting or misinterpreting what I’ve said. Religion is NOT unique in that regard. I am not arguing with you there, and I have not been, as much as you seem to wish I would.

            Religion has been a greater, more all-encompassing motivation. It has influenced more people to do do more evil than any other single factor created by men. THAT is the point I have been making. I don’t think I can be much clearer than that, so I guess if you can’t wrap your mind around it I’m not going to waste any more of my time here. I was looking forward to some good debate, but you seem more interested in deflecting my argument or misquoting my statements than actually addressing the point of my posts… I guess I should have expected that at this point.

          • But that’s kind of a silly point to be making if you, as you have done three times now, concede that the absence of religion would not mean an absence, or even a lessening, of overall worldwide violence. Indeed, given that we live in a far less religious and far more violent world than our ancestors did, saying that the problem is religion and we need to get rid of it doesn’t make any logical sense.

          • And the condescending snark is really unhelpful. Beware lest the snarker become the snarkee.

  2. Pinky, Pinky, Pinky,
    Haven’t you learned that any argument becomes instantly ineffective when it is riddled with incorrect punctuation, missing words, and incorrect spelling?

  3. It is not a strawman argument. It is a completely different argument. It is a comment on why would anyone actually follow the arguments of any religion to start with.

    • “Oh my house is shaking I’ve got to be getting a message from God! Sure… Oh, I’m a just a simple camel dung salesman and wait GOD wants me to be his Prophet– Sure…”

      Mohammad never said this. Straw man.

      “I’m just a poor boy from poor family born in a stable– oh, did I mention Mama is a virgin?”

      Jesus never said this. Straw man.

      “God sent an angel to me to tell me about the lost tribe of Israelites that made their way to the New World– then they became them strange injuns! Oh, but did I forget to mention I cannot read or write!”

      Joseph Smith never said this. Straw man.

      “Yet, oddly he’s pretty big on the not coveting thy neighbor’s wife or property– because those are bad things to do; but, conquering your neighbor and owning them as slaves? AWESOME!”

      God never said owning slaves was awesome. Straw man.

  4. Actually, altruism in certain forms is very rational. And religion is not altruistic in any shape or form. It has a pseudo-altruistic nature of helping the masses in theory. However, it only really helps the masses in the hopes of converting them into the same homogenous group of followers.

    As for experiments in without God– The Soviet Union was run by a totalitarian regime under Stalin who didn’t kill people because of their beliefs in God or not… In fact Stalin was only interested in eliminating potential threats to his regime. It had nothing to do with Religion at all. He was more in same line of leaders as Ivan the IV. Hitler and Mussolini both attempted to link their ideological beliefs in purity of their fascist regimes to religion. Hitler strengthened his regimes ties to the occult especially in an attempt to create a pure Aryan Religion for his pure Aryan Race of Super Men and Women.

    Religion has done nothing to support ourselves as better humans. It cannot do that. Every religion’s central dogmatic theme is that “I am a member of the one true belief system of God’s creation and all the rest of the world is wrong”! This is not a means to create a better world. This is a means to divide the world and create system in which prejudice is the very core of the human condition.

    • Actually, altruism in certain forms is very rational. And religion is not altruistic in any shape or form.

      Nonsense. Religion is the only source of altruism. “Love thy neighbor as thyself” is not at all logical – self-preservation is the only truly rational ideal. Nature is frighteningly rational and not the least bit altruistic.

      As for experiments in without God– The Soviet Union was run by a totalitarian regime under Stalin who didn’t kill people because of their beliefs in God or not… In fact Stalin was only interested in eliminating potential threats to his regime.

      Yes. Because without God, and with the state as the highest good, what’s to stop a totalitarian from killing people? “Thou shalt not kill” doesn’t apply to the godless, so why not kill when it suits your purposes?

      Hitler strengthened his regimes ties to the occult especially in an attempt to create a pure Aryan Religion for his pure Aryan Race of Super Men and Women.

      You’ve watched Raiders of the Lost Ark too many times. Hitler was Darwinistic and godless. Aryans were the pinnacle of Darwinian natural selection – survival of the fittest – not a religious ideal. Once again, the absence of religion paved the way for unspeakable cruelty.

      Religion has done nothing to support ourselves as better humans.

      That’s really silly. Even the concept of “better humans” derives from religious ideas. Do wolves consider what it means to be “better wolves?”

      Every religion’s central dogmatic theme is that “I am a member of the one true belief system of God’s creation and all the rest of the world is wrong”!

      No, it isn’t. Straw man.

  5. Thou shall not kill thy neighbor unless “God Says So” is really more like it… After all didn’t God did say to kill every man, woman, and child in Jericho to Joshua? I think so! Of course he spared Rehab and her family. Wow– so magnanimous of God to order the deaths of helpless children. I mean who would do that? Would an all loving God do such a thing? I think not. But people who want to rule without the fear of uprisings of pagans might do such an ethnic cleansing operation to insure the purity of their state and state run religion– yeah, that sounds a lot like Totalitarians does it not?

    Actually, wonder boy– I’ve read the history of World War II extensively. It is not Raiders of The Lost Ark. However, they were accurate in depicting Hilter’s obsession with the Occult. Actually, the fact is that Hilter’s second in command Himmler was far more into the Occult then Hitler was. Hitler only wanted to use the Occult to further his own state run religion of Aryan domination and purity. Darwin’s theories have nothing to do with Hitler’s insanity other then heredity is a mechanism of importance in creating specific phenotypes of traits in a species. In that case you might as well blame Gregor Mendel as well as being a damn progenitor of Nazism.

    “Better Humans” isn’t a concept that has any religious ties to it at all… Perhaps, I should have said ” the unexamined life is not worth living”, You are making a false conclusion with your statements about it being intrinsically religious. My statement means to better one’s self through rational thought.

    Religions cannot be relativistic even if they attempted to be. They might not clash violently with each other. But that doesn’t mean that any Religion will believe that another Religion has the answers to the divine’s mysteries. In fact the very nature of a religion is to exclude the possibility that other people have the correct belief system. Otherwise what would be the point of being a Roman Catholic, a Jew, or a Muslim in comparison to that of a member of the LDS Church? If all the dogmas are the same and all the beliefs exactly the same then each would be the same religion. This is clearly not the case so at some point one of the dogmatic beliefs must be that my belief is correct and all the rest are wrong in some fashion. Which is actually what they say any way.

    Actually, self-preservation is not the only natural answer in “nature” that is rational. For example explain why a mother Bear will willing risk her life to save her cubs from danger? If you were right then nature would simply give the simplest solution to the Bears- more cubs per birth to out weigh the dangers of predators in the wild. But that is not the case. Instead you see a strategy of reproduction that presents us with a solution of risking one’s own life to ensure the safety of the offspring. Thus an altruistic act of self sacrifice. Or you could look to the examples of animals of different species who tend to the cast off offspring of other species. For example recently a Dog adopted a tiger cub in Russia: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/dog-adopts-tiger-cubs-191930062.html
    It is not even unusual for this too happen. So tell me again what you know about altruism again? Perhaps, you should read Peter Singer’s work “The Expanding Circle” then you can comment better on what is ration, biological, and altruistic in nature.

  6. As for the strawmen you identified– that is actually called sarcasm. I can see how you would confuse it. Oh wait that is more sarcasm on my part… I can see how you might want to call these statements strawmen– but, in reality I was just illustrating my point that all religions have absurd dogmatic truths that are not to be questioned. For example doesn’t LDS believe that per-mortal life exists???

    • “I was just illustrating my point that all religions have absurd dogmatic truths that are not to be questioned.”

      But your point is, itself, a straw man argument. This is simply not true. I can’t think of a single truth taught by my faith that I haven’t questioned, or that all thoughtful members of my church have questioned. You’ve built your entire argument on a shoddy thesis.

  7. I didn’t say you couldn’t question it. I said that all religions have specific dogmatic truths that must be accepted and thus presents itself as the one true belief system of GOD! I never said you couldn’t question the the truths presented. But if you question them and find yourself not believing in them! Guess what, you’re not a believer in that religion. So, if you were deny the LDS’ positions on Cosmological Doctrine, it is a good bet you would fail to be a member of the LDS’ congregation very soon afterwards

    So, the only reason you can make a straw man out of my argument is because you misrepresented it in the first place.

    • “All religions have absurd dogmatic truths that are not to be questioned.”

      “I didn’t say you couldn’t question it.”

      Reconcile these two statement if you dare.

  8. May I note up front that you’re quite rude, and it is not a lot of fun to discuss anything with the rude. If you’d like to continue the conversation, the obnoxiousness has to go.

    Re: Thou shalt not kill – you have shifted to an entirely different discussion here, which is barely tangential to the fact that godlessness eschews any innate or unique value to human life, enabling Marxists, who are godless by design, to slaughter whoever they see fit.

    Re: Occult – read “Mein Kampf,” in which Hitler outlines his strategy in entirely Darwinistic terms and says nothing about the occult. And I could do without the “wonder boy,” thanks.

    Re: Better humans – better than what? The very concept of “better” requires an objective standard of right and wrong, which is the province of religion.

    Re: Relativism, about which I have said nothing. You stated that “Every religion’s central dogmatic theme is that ‘I am a member of the one true belief system of God’s creation and all the rest of the world is wrong’!” This is not every religion’s central dogmatic theme. Christianity, according to Jesus, is built on the concept of loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself, and “[o]n these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets,” [Matthew 22:40] which constitute the entirety of Hebrew scripture. No mention of one true belief system and everyone else being wrong.

    Re: altruism – Animals do not make moral or altruistic judgments. They are not troubled by conscience. They do not have an urge that they deny for moral purposes. In addition, Peter Singer advocates the murder of disabled infants. As such, I have no interest in his opinions on anything at all.

    Respond respectfully, or be blocked and deleted with impunity. I am paying for this microphone, Mr. Green.

  9. I’m not rude– I’m condensing… There is actually a difference! What is interesting is that you usually rude to people as well. But that is not real issue. The real issue is why do you see straw men arguments where non exist?

    One: I didn’t change the tenor of the argument as you stated. I merely stated facts about religions all having absurd beliefs: that god speaks to one person of a low stature in society and creates a new covenant with that person i.e “Abraham in Ur, Muhammad in Mecca, Jesus in the Desert… Notice theme occuring? Move forwards 2000 years from Abraham and you get Joseph Smith in Palmyra, NY… Then he gives them a new version of the religion and bam– some new faith starts. Now, not all faiths are this way but many are.

    I’ve not opened the door to Marxist mass murders. In fact there are far fewer Marxist Mass Murders in history then their are mass murders fighting over Religious and Ethnic reasons. What I’m pointing out is that Religion is a human creation designed to control the masses like any form of societal control.

    As for Hitler, being into the Occult he was. He was heavily into astrology prior to WWII. However, as I stated before Himmler was much more into the Occult- Ahnenerbe, was the intellectual society he created to further his obsession with the pure Aryan race and religion. Hitler himself who was ambivalent to any one religion in most accounts knew the power of symbolism and allowed Himmler to further these quests, because he believe it would ultimately yield him a symbolic and historical perspective for people to believe in his 3rd Reich’s natural history. Why do you think Hitler chose to model his militaristic society after Pre-Christian Rome? Because he wanted to tap into that mythology that was present. And Himmler and his occult beliefs in the Aryan Race were another tool to prove to his population the predestination of Aryan supremacy in the world.

    As for Mein Kampf– Read it and I’ve got a copy…. The book is really before Himmler and Hitler are even associates. This book is more of his political theories. Hitler develops his beliefs in using more mystical symbolism after the publication of Mein Kampf. Reportedly, there are chapters in his unpublished work that deal with using mysticism to control a population. And it makes sense Hitler and Goebbles were master’s of media manipulation. In “The Triumph of Will” Lenni does her best to create a Roman Spectacle of Caesar Entering Rome in film. I think she did a great job myself.

    Better Humans doesn’t require a objective standard at all. For example would you not agree that if humanity reduced it’s use of warfare it would not be a sign of our species bettering itself? No, objective standard there other then a simple utilitarian concept that decreasing violence would increase utility in the global society. It can be even tested.

    Now, you’ve put a false argument. You say that Christanity, according to Jesus is built on the concept of loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself. However, this is not totally true– there is a more basic belief in the system of beliefs: “Jesus is the Son of God”, if you don’t accept this axiomatic truth of Jesus’ role in the story then Christianity is lost to you. Why do you think the Nicene Creed of 325c.e is important to many Christians. It outlines the core beliefs in Christianity the ones that you shouldn’t question or if you do you cannot find other answers to. These are the core dogmatic believes that must be adhered to. Obviously, they don’t say “believe me or your wrong explicitly” but they exclude all other beliefs. For example you would be wrong if you think that Muhammad is the last prophet- because Jesus is the end of prophetic line. You would be wrong if you believe in the teachings of Hindu, Budha, Taoism, Shintoism and so on.

    You see the difference between myself and you Peter Pan is that I actually read the opposition to my views. That way I actually know what they are saying. You have the cliff notes to Peter Singer’s beliefs and they are not accurate. He is far more complex in his views on abortion then what you’ve stated here.

    As for Altruism– you view of it is colored by speciesism…

    • “I’m not rude– I’m condensing… There is actually a difference!”

      You got that right, Pinky! In fact, I can think of several differences. To begin with, “rude” is an adjective, whereas “condensing” is a verb, or a noun if you use it as a gerund. “Rude” has four letters, while “condensing” has… well, I don’t have time to count them all, but I’m pretty sure it’s more than four.

      Alphabetically speaking, “condensing” takes precedence, because C comes before R, which forms the foundation of the Dewey Decimal System if you take out the decimals. True, radically altering such a time-honored system would be both rude and condensing, but that does not correlate to both words being the same thing. Condensed milk, for instance, is not the same thing as rude milk, no matter what its expiration date. Personally, I consider cottage cheese to be rude milk, but I have little scientific support for this hypothesis.

      This brings us to the two terms’ distinct definitional differences, which are not as clear-cut as they appear at first glance. For instance, do we determine that “condensing” means “making something denser or more concentrated, or “thickening a liquid by reducing the water content, typically by heating?”

      Certainly the first definition is akin to rudeness, for if we use you as a prototype, it is clear that you have made this discussion far denser than it would have been without your participation. On the other hand, one should not overlook the benefits of thick liquids, particularly soup, especially on a very cold day like today.

      Soup! Ah, soup! The elixir of life! Tomato, chicken noodle, chicken with rice, chicken with stars, Top Ramen, cockroach, bouillabaisse, miso, tortilla, shrimp gumbo, chicken with spots, sweet-and-sour, cream of mushroom, cream of chicken, cream of chicken with stars, clam chowder, New England style clam chowder, Manhattan style clam chowder, clam chowder chicken with stars, lentil, bean, beef, beef burgundy, horse, kangaroo mess, vegetable, alphabet, steamed sage and lime turtle, French onion, lobster bisque, gazpacho, gestapo, salivary grunion with cheese, salivary grunion with stars, talcum powder, stew, cabbage, potato, titmouse, loon, crampy, Salisbury, septuagenarian, septuagenarian with stars – so many! So much! To condense this list would be rude, but that doesn’t make it the same thing as the Dewey Decimal System.

      To sum up, it’s fine that Jodie Foster admitted she’s a lesbian, but in Hollywood, how can that be considered a brave admission? You want brave? How about standing in front of the Golden Globes and announcing “I voted for Mitt Romney? ”

      As for the rest of your message, everything else you say is stupid. And Peter Singer advocates the murder of infants who have already been born, allowing for a 30 day grace period in which parents can decide whether or not they want to raise or slaughter their disabled children. It’s not about abortion. Look it up, Captain Hook.

  10. Pinky, I’m interested to know what your religious views are. Honestly. You are quick to label everyone else’s religious views as “absurd,” which makes me naturally interested to learn about your non-absurd religious beliefs.

    (For the record, if you say you are agnostic, this doesn’t make you any less absurd in your beliefs than everyone else. Punting on the issue is no less absurd than believing in something that resonates with your personally.)

      • Just trying to figure out how you asserting your dogma about how there is no God is any different than various religions asserting their dogma about the nature of God.

    • Ah yes. Truly a man without a religion.

      You believe that God does not exist, yet you can no more prove this to be true than any of the religious zealots you ridicule can prove their beliefs to be true. And by any objective standard, your belief is as absurd as anyone else’s.

      I’ve had enough comedy for today, and it’s not even lunch time.

      • Actually more so…it’s much more difficult to prove something does not exist than to prove that it does–even if its a Higgs boson.

  11. The flaw in the logic of atheists, is that they blame the religion for the acts of the religious. Religion is a tool, like any other tool Man has crafted— its good or ill comes from how it is used. Those people who find themselves inspired by their faith to help the downtrodden, be altruistic and understanding are doing good with it. Those who use religion as a basis to condemn & hate others are doing bad with it.

    And when people use religion as their excuse to do bad things, that is not the fault of the religion, but the individual who chooses those bad things. I don’t blame the Bible nor the Koran for wars– any more than I blame The Catcher in the Rye for the murder of John Lennon.