Because we united as a nation from the getgo in the Revolutionary War, and because this nation has been famed as a nation of peace and prosperity for everyone that works hard enough from the beginning, it is important that we realize and look to that through forever changing times. Immigration will never stop, and race will never stop. Americans should not ignore that.

*I’m sure even the most rabid atheist who comments here supports the right of folks everywhere to believe whatever they choose. And to practice whatever religious ceremonies they prefer in the privacy of their home or church.*
Nope.
I certainly don’t support the first, but I accept it only to the extent that their beliefs are not used to mess up my life. And I really doubt anyone actually accepts the second – are Baalists allowed to throw children into furnaces? Are followers of the old Maya religion permitted to cut the still beating hearts out of human sacrifices?

Erm, yeah, your concerns were addressed in my very next paragraph, to whit:

I said (#122):

However, I think most of us here would agree that said right stops at the surface of that person’s skin. I.e. no-one has the right to foist their own brand of religious claptrap on anyone else.

So, our sentiments are close echoes.

Along these lines, I had a brilliant thought (well, it dazzled me):-

What if religious indoctrination of children under the age of (say) 16 were prohibited? Give kids some basic knowledge and reasoning skills, and then introduce religion. What would the world be like then?

Nigel @ 139.

Nope, not Richard Dawkin’s side. He is also surely also on God’s side, if you read the first paragraph of my post which noted that “In God We Trust” was put on US coins during the Civil War to remind Northerners that God was on their side. Mr. Dawkins surely finds slavery even more abhorrent than belief in God.

Heh. I guess my comedic use of a selective quote failed to work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pwwvBygoFA

by DarkMatter2525 is kinda relevant here.

Especially at the 3 minutes thirty second mark.

Although the whole thing make some good, forceful albeit one-sided points.

Also I would think that if the main forefront of this battle were with Christians that rational folks would give them the benefit of the doubt about these older testaments. After all as far as I understand the Bible sought to explain things which could not be explained at the time. As does most of humanity in some way then & now.

Thank My God for Science.
How do you like them apples?

Nope, not Richard Dawkin’s side. He is also surely also on God’s side, if you read the first paragraph of my post which noted that “In God We Trust” was put on US coins during the Civil War to remind Northerners that God was on their side. Mr. Dawkins surely finds slavery even more abhorrent than belief in God.

“A lot of Christians where crosses around their necks. You think when Jesus comes back he ever wants to see a f—— cross? It’s kinda like going up to Jackie Onassis with a little sniper rifle pendant. ‘Hey Jackie, just thinking of John.’”

Ah, Bill Hicks. The good always die young.

If they were rational, they wouldn’t be a cult

That’s a tough one. Nyarlahotep probably has a bigger following, and has some really cool toys. Plus he’s just plain charismatic. Also, no one will laugh at you for bowing to him.
On the other hand, Princess Celestia won’t drive you insane and enslave you to do the bidding of the Outer Gods. Plus she smells like strawberry cupcakes.

So, yeah, six of one, half dozen of the other.

If there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster than he/it’s devious, duplicitous, capricious, homicidal, irrational, vengeful, sadistic, and racist along with a vast number of other negative traits. Why the hell would I trust a Flying Spaghetti Monster?
See, I sound like an idiot.

Yes, but only because the Christian god is described in the OT of the bible as possessing many of those characteristics (e.g. demanding that Abraham sacrifice his son, then stepping in at the last second and saying “heh, just testing, you don’t have to kill him for me after all”); whereas the FSM is does not have a “sacred” text assigning all those characteristics to it.

Those people who do believe in God – and I am not one of them – generally characterise God as Loving, Just, Merciful, etc .. although their behaviour it is true doesn’t always live up to that and there are some pretty nasty actions of God described in many religious texts. In essence, things there are a lot more complicated than your comment argues.

Yeah, many Christians kinda ignore the OT most of the time. If you judge the attributes of god by the amount of spece devoted to them in the bible, Michael Swanson’s characterisation is not far off the mark.

If you’re not on God’s side, which side are you on again? Just asking…

That’s easy. Richard Dawkins’s.

If God does not exist then why all the adjectives?

It seems patently ridiculous to discuss the nature of something which you claim does not exist. More ridiculous even than those people whom you sarcastically poke jabs at who believe in such a consciousness. Furthermore, I have not read in science where such a consciousness is proven not to exist.

Yeah, I am aware that Flying Spaghetti Monsters have not be ruled out either, however I prefer to live with the reality that science currently cannot offer a proof to explain everything in the Universe; it's beginning, it's end nor the ultimate parameters of our existence or what happens to my consciousness when I die, nor do I expect science to deliver such ultimate revelations anytime soon. What science does do is provide me with understanding about my world that can be empirically proven; therefore, God=fictional is not a true statement nor is it provable, it is just as non-sensical as God=real. Or is it okay to say

"Flying Spaghetti Monsters are capricious, murderous, megalomaniacal madman."
See, I sound like an idiot.

If you think it best to just drop it, than perhaps you should have just dropped it to begin with.

94. BJN Says:
November 2nd, 2011 at 1:52 pm
If there is a God, he/it’s devious, duplicitous, capricious, homicidal, irrational, vengeful, sadistic, and racist along with a vast number of other negative traits. Why the hell would I trust that deity?

"IF". . .

I think your suffering from the same thing as Michael Swanson.

If there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster than he/it's devious, duplicitous, capricious, homicidal, irrational, vengeful, sadistic, and racist along with a vast number of other negative traits. Why the hell would I trust a Flying Spaghetti Monster?
See, I sound like an idiot.

"IF", "THEN". . . horrible deduction, absurd reasoning, reminiscent of ID.

What does this have to do with the US House of Representatives? It should not have anything to do with it. Separation of church and state is a solid building block I think, although with the passing of this law it continues to seem that such separation is still just a fairy-tale in the United States.

@63. James :

heathen (adj)
1. not adhering to an Abrahamic religion; pagan.
2. (by extension) uncultured; uncivilized; savage, philistine.
3. pertaining to currents of Germanic neo-paganism known as Heathenry.
(of course, I didn’t know that until I looked it up to check )

Thanks for that.

Although I will quicky note that heathens – pagans – are still religious not “godless” or atheists.

@90. Keith Bowden :

@MTU – the quote you’re thinking of comes from the late, great Bill Hicks: “A lot of Christians where crosses around their necks. You think when Jesus comes back he ever wants to see a f—— cross? It’s kinda like going up to Jackie Onassis with a little sniper rifle pendant. ‘Hey Jackie, just thinking of John.’”

Thanks.

@105. Chris Winter :

For those who don’t recognize the reference [by Bad Wolf #31], Nehemiah Scudder was the preacher in Heinlein’s If this Goes On—, which portrayed a future theocratic America. And to be pedantic, it wasn’t Heinlein’s first novel, as Wikipedia states. That was For Us, the Living — albeit published long after his death.

Thanks.

I got the original Scudder reference but didn’t know that extra info there – although I guess it depends on whether you think of things in publication order or writing order.

Although since god is a capricious, murderous, megalomaniacal madman and religion spends all of its time talking about how great he is, the difference is negligible. Probably best if both were just dropped. [Emphasis added.]

God *is* that is (S)he? Really?

That sounds like Richard Dawkins rather one-sided and unbalanced characterisation of God (the Biblical variety specifically if memory serves) but that characterisation of Him certainly isn’t one that many religious people incl. some very nice and kind and reasonable individuals would share or agree with you on.

Those people who do believe in God – and I am not one of them – generally characterise God as Loving, Just, Merciful, etc .. although their behaviour it is true doesn’t always live up to that and there are some pretty nasty actions of God described in many religious texts. In essence, things there are a lot more complicated than your comment argues.

That questions raises a whole lot of other questions – three key examples being :

1) Whose / which God, gods or goddesses?

2) Does God even have sides? Phyiscally *and* metaphorically? Some religions feature God(s) being partisan and often interving in Human affairs / this mortal realm whilst others do not prefering instead a non-interventionist diety(ies) instead.

3) How do you know whose side God(~ddess/s) is on? It is very easy to say that “God is on *our* side.” Very frequently two or more opposing or competing parties will claim that – sometimes even referring to the same diety. But proving or tangibly knowing that for sure is another very different matter!

If you are asking whether or not I’m on Gods side then as an agnostic I’d have to answer simply that I do not know.

Plus that, more complexly, it would depend on a whole lot of things starting with the question of whether there is a God on whose side to be in the first place. On the issue of the number and nature of the God/~ddess/s in question. That assuming a benevolent good god I’d hope so but cannot be certain. That assuming a malevolent negative God, I’d hope to opposed but, again, couldn’t be certain and in that situation would wish for an opposing Gooddess / God / Supernatural Force to exist also to provide us with some countering balance and hope of something good instead.

# 53 Messier Tidy Upper – thanks for your inquiry. It is really the “Star of Bethlehem” because it looks exactly like * and not two triangles making six points. So, a white Christian cross on the bottom left and the “star” on the upper right (right hand of god).

Thanks for your reply. Curious thing really – never heard of the Star of Bethelehem being used as an identifying symbol like that before.

@99. Keith Bowden : A little OT, but appropriate, I think: click on my name for Cracked‘s “5 Logical Fallacies That Make You Wrong More Than You Think.”

Thanks – good article and so true.

@102. Wzrd1 :

I WILL agree totally with “In God we trust.” All others must pay cash. As a PERSONAL or BUSINESS motto. For a NATIONAL motto, I’ll stick with “Out of many, one”. E. Pluribus Unim. It describes how our nation is SUPPOSED to work, so today, it’s an admonishment.

Or how about this quote by Thomas Jefferson in 1789 :

“Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.”

Seen in the current (29th October 2011) issue of ‘NewScientist’ magazine or – from the same souce but this time spoken by Alexis de Toqueville :

“In every democracy, people get the government they deserve.”

Sigh. That second one there might make people think but its actually a fairly depressing statement.

As national mottos go I guess ‘From many one” still works pretty well although maybe English woyuld be better than Latin?

I didn’t know the phrase was from Futura – I don’t watch the show.

I do like your point about the demigods and the joke.

#124 Gus Snarp

Reading your comment I suddenly realised that this was my own thoughts on noen’s comments, but were far more articulate. Thanks for saying what I could not.

Yes. As long as THEIR affair doesn’t interfere with the rest of us. And as long as THEIR affairs keep messing up OUR government, the rest of us have to make it OUR affair – not only to stop and reverse the consequences of their ignorant yet extraordinarily impudent and arrogant self glorified righteousness, but to educate them and their progeny about the wonders of nature and the actual realities we face and how science – NOT religious superstition – supplies the best solutions to whatever ails us all.

I’m currently in a crisis of faith choosing between Nyarlathotep and Princess Celestia.

Are you kidding? Just in the last few months, aye?