digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

"Imagine No Religion" Billboards Spark National Controversy

bbsnews.net — The national campaign is an effort to let Americans know that there is room for reason and clarity of thought, free from the dogma that organized religion uses to keep its flock in line; as well as donating.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • bratpack8, on 02/13/2008, -112/+497Once again, these people miss the key point. Religion isn't the problem, it is the use of force. That force can only be carried about via the power of the State. People should voluntarily choose whether or not to go to church, support a church or religion and how they worship. However, if the church forces others to act against their will, that is wrong as well. But the real reason for the blame is crosses on public property and gays don't get special rights, which is the other side 'forcing' their will upon others.
    As for gay marriage, government shouldn't even be involved in marriage. And government shouldn't be giving gays different rights from heterosexuals either.
    • lnf69, on 02/13/2008, -43/+158um, this has been said many times before, but looks like it needs to be said again.
      As long as the gov't recognizes marriage as a formal contract between individuals, and thus these individuals receive many financial and social advantages that non-married ppl do not enjoy, then you cannot say that " government shouldn't even be involved in marriage... "
      If marriage did not bring a whole bunch of social and financial advantages, then you might be correct.
      But marriage has A LARGE IMPACT ON SECULAR LIFE REGARDLESS OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, so the religious right is in the wrong in stuffing their beliefs down others throats.
      • MaynardJK, on 02/13/2008, -25/+77*As long as the gov't recognizes marriage as a formal contract between individuals, and thus these individuals receive many financial and social advantages that non-married ppl do not enjoy, then you cannot say that " government shouldn't even be involved in marriage... "*

        Jesus Christ. What the ***** do you think he meant when he said " government shouldn't even be involved in marriage"? Perhaps he meant that these individuals SHOULDN'T "receive many financial and social advantages that non-married ppl do not enjoy"
        • lnf69, on 02/13/2008, -37/+36Well, first of all, all though I am flattered, you should know that I am not Jesus Christ.
          Second, many of the advantages I speak about are not from the gov't, but from private institutions such as insurance companies, hospitals, employers.
          If you're talking about letting the free market handle these issues, as in, a successful hospital would recognize the rights of a self-proclaimed family unit, (that is, not legally marriage, since in your utopia, marriage is no longer a legal contract,) then that certainly needs to explained further, not just intuited from his post.
          • Godlike, on 02/13/2008, -2/+10It doesn't matter, fine people, use the stupid and ambiguous 'involved' terms in place of actual discussion when you know there is no ground to stand on, fine, but the truth of the matter is that the government should not be involved in saying WHO can be married and WHO cannot. If two people decide that they want to declare marriage then telling them that they cannot is nothing short of discrimination, plain and simple.
          • MWeather, on 02/13/2008, -2/+16"If two people decide that they want to declare marriage then telling them that they cannot is nothing short of discrimination, plain and simple."

            Why only two people?
          • mahuebel, on 02/13/2008, -1/+8It seems to me that your problem has nothing to do with the government and everything to do with private insurance companies and things of that nature. Why are you asking the government to butt in? Can you people not see that this is how the government got so stupidly big and controlling in the first place? The federal government should have absolutely no say on who can or can't get married. I suggest you take it up with your state's government
          • staffa, on 02/14/2008, -0/+7"If two people decide that they want to declare marriage then telling them that they cannot is nothing short of discrimination, plain and simple."

            I am so going to the wedding between your 6 your old son and your 52 year old father.

            All kidding aside, exluding the obviously silly, I agree with you.

        • kingmanic, on 02/13/2008, -30/+4Marriage clears up a lot of things for the State like who gets your stuff if you die. It promotes procreation. Thus the state gives advantages to people who marry because getting married has benefits for the state. The point of human beings is to perpetuate. Everybody contributes to that in some small way but the gov should encourage it through taxes.
          • norman619, on 02/13/2008, -1/+10A will works even better.
          • michrech, on 02/13/2008, -4/+8How, prey-tell, does marriage "promote procreation"? I'd *love* to see an explanation to *that*.

            There are ~300 million in the US alone. You can't possibly believe that such a number was reached only (or even mostly) because people got married...
          • troye, on 02/13/2008, -2/+11@michrech, it's called 'bible-thumper logic'
          • Corrosionx, on 02/13/2008, -0/+3You don't need the state involved in marriage for that, that's what notaries are for. Government is a parasite and getting involved in marriage is just another proof of that.
          • BlackCow, on 02/14/2008, -0/+4Oh yes, because thats just what this world needs. MORE people!
          • lickmylovepump, on 02/14/2008, -5/+1One time this dude in a store sneezed next to me, and I said, "god bless you." He then stated, "I'm atheist."
            So I said, "Congratulations! You have nothing to look forward to!"

            -taken completely out of context, and stolen from a Dane Cook joke.
            also, i've posted this twice now in this thread, because it is funny. if you personally don't like it, don't take yourself too seriously. oh, and call the digg police.
          • kurttrail, on 02/14/2008, -0/+3I'm sure that Dane stole it from someone else too.
          • andburn1, on 02/14/2008, -3/+1It's "pray tell." And I'm sorry, but in America in 1995, only 9.3 percent of children had unmarried parents. American tradition does exist - the expectation for "normal" people is to get married and have children - in that order. I'm not judging whether this expectation is right or wrong, I'm stating a fact about American social consciousness.

            The source is recycling a different article, so don't judge my source based on this website. http://www.queerparents.org/unmarried.html
        • tschau, on 02/13/2008, -6/+22Why are people digging down Inf69's reply?

          He's right, many non-governmental private entities (insurance, employers, etc) incorporate marriage status into coverage, fees, etc. If there is no such thing as being legally married, all of this would have to be completely dropped, which doesn't seem like a good thing.

          I'll note that if marriage ceases to be a legal contract, gay marriage would effectively become immediately legal, as the only thing necessary would be to find someone willing to perform a ceremony.
          • fyngyrz, on 02/13/2008, -3/+8So what's the problem with gay marriage? Or polygamous marriage? If people want to join up in social and financial and family matters in a ceremonial manner, public or otherwise, what's the problem? And why is it that employers or insurers should be giving married people better deals than single people? You think they are better people, somehow? Some poor ugly person who can't get a partner on their best day sits at home, and you want to promote John and Jane Doe's benefits even *further* over their situation? Sounds just like another disgusting flavor of prejudice to me. Marriage should be a personal commitment from one person to another, the law and the government should stay out of it. If the people involved feel there need to be contractual issues between them, they can go see a lawyer before they go see a priest — there's nothing stopping them from ensuring power of attorney, post-divorce or post-death benefits. But the government doesn't need to be in there dishing out favors and penalties based on this. Government has no legitimate place in this; its business is fixing potholes, keeping bridges from falling into the river, and seeing to it that our borders are safe from military incursion.
        • bphicke, on 02/13/2008, -2/+19"encourage it through taxes"
          Son, you have been brainwashed.
          • LeeSoong, on 02/17/2008, -0/+1@

            "find someone willing to perform a ceremony."

            Why do people need to be authorized to have a domestic partner,
            or get outside approval for their mating behavior ?

            In many common law states - two people can simply say 'we're married',
            live together, and after some time period - they are automatically 'married'.

            Some religions actually are anti-organized religion (!) and do not recognize priests or ministers. Each member ''layperson'' is considered a priest/minister - so two of them can certainly marry themselves to each other - no third party needed, though witnesses are usually invited to the party for fun and general happiness.

            Plural marriage is also popular in many cultures - it is just American Racist attitudes and religious hate crimes that bring 'lawful' abuse to plural spouses.
            And like all religious hate crimes, this abuse and discrimination is usually justified with their Bibles - even though it quite directly states that King David had many wives and concubines too.

            Every Bible believing Christian should recognize their Divine right to Kingship - plural marriage came long before Christ, and no government should deny a person's right to wed.
        • thebaron2, on 02/13/2008, -4/+5@bphicke

          Maybe I'm misreading your comment, but the tax system now does encourage marriage and child-bearing, in so far as you get exemptions and breaks for being married and having kids that you wouldn't otherwise enjoy. Two people filing a joint income tax will pay less per person than if the same two individuals filed separately.

          It's a roundabout way of encouraging it, but it is what it is.
          • fyngyrz, on 02/13/2008, -2/+5Yes, you did miss the point. The point is, they shouldn't encourage it through taxes. It's prejudiced and wrong.
        • glasnostic, on 02/13/2008, -2/+8Inf69 is very right. the government provides the stamp of approval, but its the rest of our society that takes it's cue from that stamp. we could take the stamp out of the hands of the government, but then who do we give it to? the churches? well then now the atheists have nowhere to get married. no.. marriage is a legal and binding contract, and so the government needs some involvement in that.

          and as a person who thinks that any two or three or four or more people should be able to get married, i also think my government has a right to say 10 is too young for marriage.
          • fyngyrz, on 02/13/2008, -0/+6You don't "give it to" anyone. It isn't a meaningful thing. If you and I want to get married, we say "we're married", and we're married. Just like you say "we're engaged." If you say so, you are. No one questions you if you both agree you're engaged, right? So what's the problem with treating marriage the same way? If you want contractual obligations, see a lawyer and write up a contract, or take a boilerplate one. And why is ten too young for marriage if marriage (a) doesn't have legal obligations (like conjugal obligations) and (b) marriage isn't a legal state and (c) the government can *already* say that 10 is too young for sex and (d) it isn't a state that you have trouble getting into or out of? All marriage has *ever* really been socially is a couple of people joining together as a matter of various conveniences for a (short or long) while. There isn't a single thing about marriage that people don't do in an unmarried state; sex, kids, buy homes together, visit each other's families, etc., nor should there be. The thing that makes marriage reprehensible is the stink of prejudice that it carries: You can, they can't; it is divisive, and so it isn't something the government should be inflicting on its citizens.
          • andburn1, on 02/14/2008, -1/+1Now I'm the last person to defend "values" or "tradition," but marriage is a part of the modern world's social structure. It is based on untold years of tradition, and is a powerful symbol and an important structural institution in the lives of many people, and in the definition of their place in society. You cannot discard an ingrained, pervasive part of our cultural identity. You're free to not be married if you choose, but there are studies up to your eyes that will show you that marriage provides a more stable life for children and adults. Economically, socially, psychologically, and developmentally, there are many advantages to marriage and the "traditional" family structure. This, for me, extends to gay marriage as well. But the cohesiveness of marriage is predicated on legal obligations. It's in our genetics to try and find a mate for life, it's part of human nature. Please don't presume to sweep marriage away with empty rhetoric.
          • glasnostic, on 02/14/2008, -0/+2fyngyrs

            i think i get your point, and its a good one. my response would be this.. here in Texas i am legally married to my girlfriend, even though we have never had a ceremony. well actually i'm not married to her because she is legally married to her ex. see the state with its "interest" decided that living together and sharing income means legal marriage. its kinda ***** IMHO but thats the way it goes here.

            what i like about requiring contracts and things like that is that it makes it harder for somebody to screw me over. when you are married and you break the contract by cheating, it makes a big difference in court. and there are other factors, like who gets your ***** when you die if you don't have a will. if its all left up to "well we said we were married" then things just get that much more hard to wade through when the ***** hits the fan.

            so.... personally i don't think there should be any restrictions on marriage other then age, since at a certain point, children do not have the capacity to enter into contracts like marriage. but i also don't think we should do away with the legal framework that helps people every day.
        • kingmanic, on 02/13/2008, -8/+5@bphicke and everyone that dug me down: This conclusion is not religiously motivated but biologically. I am an atheist. Go ahead and view my history I am consistently against organized religion but you need to recognize that the human race continues by having kids and states have vested interests in this.
          • MWeather, on 02/13/2008, -1/+6The state has a vested interest in many things they should not be involved in.
          • glasnostic, on 02/13/2008, -0/+7procreation is not helped by marriage. most people have less sex when they are married, not more. if they state really wanted to bump our birth rate up, they would ban marriage and birth control.

            with that said, i don't think there is any reason to give married couples a tax break. give them a break when they have a kid or two.

          • fyngyrz, on 02/14/2008, -0/+6The idea that people would not have kids if they weren't married is really just pretty stupid. I'm not trying to be mean, but look around you. Kids come from sex. You think sex would stop without marriage? Hardly. You think maternal and paternal instincts trigger because some guy in a robe, or the state, says, "go forth and multiply"? Hardly. There are people having kids all over the place who aren't married. I'm not married, I'm 51, and I have three adult children (all skilled professionals, as am I and their mother.)

            No need to give people a break for having children, either. Give them all a break and if they want to have kids, that's their business. There's no way around the fact that if you "give a break" for one thing, you're penalizing the opposite state, and that's simply organized prejudice.
        • mahuebel, on 02/13/2008, -2/+2@glasnostic We should give it to the state governments where it belongs. This shouldn't be a federal issue.
          • glasnostic, on 02/13/2008, -1/+2the federal level of government does not get involved in marriage for the most part. what it has done, is invalidate state laws that have placed restrictions on marriage that are unconstitutional. so basically, the US constitution by virtue of the fact of it's national jurisdiction means that the federal government has at least some say over marriage.

            as it stands right now though, its the state and local governments that are holding that stamp. thats still government though, make no mistake, your local judge is a leaf on a limb on a branch that leads to a big ass trunk called "the government".

            so when you say "give it to the state governments where it belongs", you are forgetting that that is where it is. when you say "this shouldn't be a federal issue" you forget that when states step on your US Constitutional rights, the are the ones making it a federal issue.
          • rationalist, on 02/14/2008, -1/+3Why states, arbitrarily? Why not counties, or municipalities - or neighborhood watch groups?
            It would be helpful if folks thought about this issue rationally and pragmatically, rather than reaching into their dogma bag every time something comes up.
            Free market fundamentalists are just as useless as religious fundamentalists are just as useless any any other worldview that starts with the answers and never bothers to ask the questions.
            A pox on all your houses.
            THAT is the real message behind this billboard, and the fact that it is at all controversial shows just how deep-rooted is the fear to think free.
        • Corrosionx, on 02/13/2008, -1/+3@tschau: You could have a private marriage notarized and it would be legal.
      • jmpeagle, on 02/13/2008, -18/+7the government has not right to recognize a heterosexual or a homosexual marriage. They can recognize their state created "civil unionss". Private businesses such as insurance companies, etc... can provide any benefit they want to those of heterosexual marriages or homosexual marriages for the same reason we are allowed to provide benefits for children, old people, women, handicapped, etc (technically a few organization can get away with giving special treatment to white people although it's called those of "European descent"...yayy european cultural clubs)
        • bemenaker, on 02/13/2008, -2/+25Marriage is a legal contract. It started as a religiously acknowledged legal contract, that didn't need a ceremony or permission to be. If you said you were married, you were. Today, marriage is nothing but a legal contract between two people. So, there should be no basis of sexual creed associated.

          Time the religious right go reread the NEW TESTAMENT, not the OLD, and listen to Jesus said. I'm an atheist, and I can see it easier than they can. Actually, that's why. If you really think Jesus would tolerate you condemning people, you better go spend some time reading.
          • eosp, on 02/13/2008, -11/+3I = Christian.
            He did eat with them and "party" with them. But he then called them to repentance.
            We should act in this order, but not forget the second step.
          • norman619, on 02/13/2008, -5/+3Time you learn that BOTH are supposed to be the word of "God." You can't cherry pick. Either you believe or you don't.
          • round427, on 02/13/2008, -0/+9No, eosp, here's what we should do: not hate people. Let gays get married if straight people are able to. There is NO REASON why they shouldn't be able to.
          • norman619, on 02/13/2008, -0/+4@round:

            I don't get why people care so much about who marries who. If it's not hurting anyone leave them be!
          • TreDubZedd, on 02/13/2008, -8/+3Gays _do_ have the same rights as straights: a gay man has just as much right to marry a woman as a straight man does.
          • jonshipman, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1@norman619

            Much of the old testament law was to protect Jewish health back in the "uncivilized" age where everything was germy. Why else did they not allow the eating of Pork and if you ejaculated you had to leave the camp for 7 days (same during a period). It wasn't because homosexuals were sinning, it's because the anus is quite dirty.
          • snarfyboy, on 02/13/2008, -0/+6@ TreDubZedd

            They tried that argument in the 60's too: "Black people have the sames rights to marry someone of the same race just like white people!" Didn't work then, doesn't work now.
          • rationalist, on 02/14/2008, -0/+4@jonshipman,
            Can you explain to us the biological insight behind the prohibition against wearing cloth made of two different fibers, or the commandment to wear blue tassels on garments?
            You are a gullible victim of ex post facto religious apologetics. The unspoken assumption behind that myth is that "God" whispered bacteriology in the ears of the authors of Jewish law. There is no more evidence to support that than there is that Jesus was preaching equal LGBT rights two thousand years ago.
            Such faux explanations of "ancient wisdom" only hold up if you accept the initial theistic premise - which is the true intent behind propagating such myths.
            Question what you "receive". Think free.
      • Terr01, on 02/13/2008, -3/+77Well, If I had my way...

        Everywhere in the law, "Marriage" should be changed to "Civil union", and "wife" or "husband" to partner, spouse, whatever: Some generic term. Let the "sanctity of marraige" folks take their label and do whatever they want with it. "Marriages" would be solely a private label bestowed by a church or private group with no legal force. (You want to get "married"? The bartender could do it during happy hour, for all the government cares.)

        So the church tells you whether you're living in sin, and the government takes care of whether you have a legally recognized family-unit partnership of some sort, with all the power-of-attorney, inheritance, etc. etc. that is implied.

        Most people would then file the paperwork for a union before their actual ceremony. Sure, it's a little less romantic, but the alternative is being embarrased if you found out after the vows that someone made a typo and you had to resubmit in triplicate.
        • makeitloud, on 02/13/2008, -1/+20Amen!
        • Esstee, on 02/13/2008, -1/+4Now that makes good sense!
          If only the authorities could wake up and do that things would get a whole lot simpler.
        • mahuebel, on 02/13/2008, -3/+12I'm Christian and this is exactly what I've been telling people how it should be for years now!
          Marriage originated in religion, let it be religious... Civil unions are more appropriate for non-religious people
          • rationalist, on 02/14/2008, -3/+6Not quite the same point.
            Civil union are legal contracts and thus appropriate for all citizens. If religious people, or anyone else, wants to have their own ceremony, they should be free to do so - but it should be non-binding and have no legal significance under contract law.
        • akatsuki, on 02/14/2008, -0/+3I would just let people contract privately and not have any sort of official union. Government should just protect minors, etc... but whatever two or more consenting adults want to do is fine by me.
        • lnf69, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1@Teff01:
          thanks, you captured the point I was trying to make.
          The problem is when marriage is limited to the definition imposed by religious beliefs. IMHO marriage should be defined by secular needs of society. Thus as you say, even a bartender at happy hour can perform the ceremony or my uncle ralf can invent his own ceremony so that his (adult) friends can marry each other, if that's what they want.
      • humperdeath, on 02/13/2008, -5/+4As for a religious marriage ceremony, I agree, Gov't should butt out.
        BUT, for the legal definitions, and rights thereof, the Gov't DOES need to step in to make sure the law is enforced. Besides, it goes 2 ways. If they allow gay marriage, they have to allow gay divorce, and THAT will be the real challenge.
        • lougoose, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1I guess the people on Digg don't see the sarcasm here, because you are getting buried.
          • lnf69, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1His comment may be sarcastic, but he is saying things that many ppl believe to be true.
      • JP42, on 02/13/2008, -0/+5Marriage is a social and religious bias against single people! I don't see why married couples should have any more breaks(tax or otherwise) than single people. In fact shouldn't single people get a tax break because they don't have the potential for a double income?
        • mahuebel, on 02/13/2008, -1/+3I think they get a tax break because back in the day, the woman would stay home and the man would have to pay to support both him and her... plus any kids they would have.
        • TreDubZedd, on 02/13/2008, -4/+2Studies have shown the benefits, to society as a whole, of marriage and family-life. Children with a strong family support are less likely to vandalize the local court house, for example. It seems to me that if a government entity is able to recognize and isolate parts of the population, over which it has jurisdiction, which are beneficial to that government entity in any way...well, such a population should be entitled to some benefit. Our government has chosen tax breaks for those people.
        • Acolyte357, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1"Studies have shown..." and where are these studies? I would love to see your long term scientific study showing that a child raised by gay parents are worse behaved than children raise by straight parents.
      • vertinox, on 02/13/2008, -1/+4Why not call it a business contract rather than marriage? I can form a corporation with a man or a woman and no one gives a damn, but if someone forms form a marriage which is effect the same thing in legal terms for tax issues in a sense with someone of the same sex someone gets all in a tizzy.

        The easy solution would be to say marriage does not give you tax benefits, but if you wish to form a partnership with anyone you should be allowed to do so with whoever you feel like regardless of gender or relation. Then let the church or lacktherof determine who is married under their belief system and the government has nothing to do with that?
      • Zyphron, on 02/14/2008, -1/+2To answer the question of whether or not the government should regulate marriage, or civil unions, you first need to look at WHY the government currently DOES regulate marriage.
        The answer is essentially that the government has a vested interest in marriage because marriages are the most effective social grouping to produce effective productive members of future generations of the society. (aka taxpayers) This is certainly not to say that children cannot be produced via artificial insemination, or that a single parent cannot raise a child, but it IS to say that, statistically speaking, a marriage (between a male and a female) is the most effective way of producing a new generation of taxpayers. THAT is why marriage is supported and given benefits from the government. Given that reason, there is not enough statistical justification to grant those same rights to homosexual couples, who statistically speaking, are not as effective at producing future generations of taxpayers.
    • lnf69, on 02/13/2008, -21/+6Other than what I stated above I agree with most of what you say, although it is not clear who "these people", the ones missing the key point. Those in favor of religion taking over the state or those trying to promote a secular USA, where everyone is FREE TO CHOOSE THE MEANING OF THE WORD GOD.
      • TheHurler, on 02/13/2008, -2/+17Force??

        As long as I'm being FORCED to pay property taxes, and these damn multi-million dollar churches with their ten acre parking lots are TAX EXEMPT, then I've got a big freaking problem with that.

        Who cares about Marriage? I know couples with kids who aren't married and don't want to be. I know gay people in lifetime commitments who don't want to be state-sanctioned in marriage either. It's an archaic form of property rights, you know. Read up on your history for crying out loud.

        In the mean time, can we please get these fear-tactic "give us money or go to hell" leaches on society to pay some taxes like the rest of us? Until then, there is no separation of church and state.

        • oldhick, on 02/13/2008, -15/+3Those multi-million dollar churches donate a lot more to charity then you do.
          • rationalist, on 02/14/2008, -0/+7Actually, that is factually incorrect. The only reason people have that impression is that - only in the case of religion - "charity" includes money spent on church buildings, salaries and limos to priests, fancy pipe organs, and gold trimming. You can have 100% of your contribution to a church considered "charity" under the law even if literally 0% of it goes to anyone's actual social welfare.
            The majority of religious charitable contributions in the US do not feed the hungry, clothe the bare, or house the homeless.
            Churches are exempt from the overhead restrictions and reporting requirements ALL other nonprofits must meet to keep their tax exemptions and must share with the public.
        • ICSU, on 02/13/2008, -3/+6oldhick,
          evidence?
          I know you are not used to provide that being religious and all but still I want some.
        • keenfrenzy, on 02/13/2008, -3/+2ICSU: Proof can be obtained at any church. They make their financial dealings public at the end of every year. My church gave away somewhere close to the order of 7 million dollars in charity last year to schools and hospitals in Africa, Katrina victims, Homeless in Chicago and other causes. Just go to a church and ask, I'm sure they'll be more than happy to provide you with any proof you want to see.
          • rationalist, on 02/14/2008, -0/+3Churches in the US are not required to make any financial dealings public - they are exempt from the restrictions and public reporting requirements all other nonprofits must submit to.
            In fact, most churches do not share detailed financial reports about the percentage of their received donations that go to overhead vs. services, nor the percentage of the money they outlay that actually goes to services. Many churches collect millions annually yet provide little or no services to the needy. They build fancier churches and buy fancier automobiles for their ministers, and don't have to report it to anyone.
        • TheHurler, on 02/13/2008, -1/+5Kenfrenzy,

          That's not proof. It's a self-reported number. The truth is, churches are self audited. Yeah, that's right.
          7 million dollars is chicken feed to a mega church. Independent audits have been done and show that 85% of tithings go straight to the church, and 15% or less go to charitable causes. In other words, That money you pay to the church every week is mostly for ENTERTAINMENT VALUE. Did you get a rise out of the sermon? Look at that fancy building, those fancy fixtures, all those people and maintenance, think about it, what pays for all that?

          Just like a Las Vegas Casino, it's fun, but follow the money, and you'll see that you're just being taken for a showy ride.

          As for the afterlife and all that, anyone who tells you they KNOW what's happening there, is either delusional or outright lying to you. Think about it.

          • keenfrenzy, on 02/13/2008, -3/+1TheHurler: ICSU wanted proof from oldhick that the churches give more to charity than he does. That is what I offered up, a suggestion on how to obtain the proof in question.

            In response to your self-audit comment, that is not always entirely true.
            Our church has a board of directors which includes many people who don't even attend the church, but instead attend other churches and work elsewhere. Its how they keep things honest.

            FWIW, our pastor has lived in the same average house for 20 years and drives an average car. The money given by the members goes toward operating expenses and the rest to charities. Nobody on staff at my church is rich because of money paid to them by the church, in fact, most of the people working there are volunteers.
          • rationalist, on 02/14/2008, -0/+4keenfrenzy, the point is that churches are exempt from reporting, and are not obligated to spend a majority of their income on actual services, and your anecdote does not change the fact. Churches, synagogues, mosques and temples alone enjoy this freedom, no other nonprofit does. And, the fact is that the overwhelming majority of churches do NOT report detailed financial information.
            Why should churches enjoy tax exemption without the same accountability as every other organization that enjoys such advantages? How does that serve the public, and how does freedom without responsibility square with religious morality?
          • kurttrail, on 02/14/2008, -0/+2@keenfrenzy

            You offered no proof, just an anecdote, which isn't any more credible than if I told you about the extraterrestrials I met on the way home from work.

            But hey, you probably think that faith is better than reality, so keep on deluding yourself, and contributing to Idiocracy.
        • tschau, on 02/13/2008, -0/+2The people in this thread need to learn about the reply button. It's what keeps the comments here sanely organized, and avoids having to repeat all of our stupid usernames in posts.
          • fyngyrz, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1First Digg has to learn how to get threads more than four deep, and how to sort threads by the order of reply, and not throw incorrect errors that mislead people as to what the problem is...
          • rationalist, on 02/14/2008, -0/+2That would be wonderful if the digg comment system weren't hopelessly broken, among other things by disallowing responses beyond four levels in, and failing to display the reply link at all in many cases.
    • EatingPie, on 02/13/2008, -34/+15Everyone in America IS free to choose the meaning of the word God. I'm not sure why you say otherwise.

      Certainly "the religious right" is a lobbyist group, just like any other lobbyist group. But they haven't succeeded in changing "Freedom of Religion," nor AFAIK are they trying to. I work with a Jew, an Atheist, two Catholics, and an Agnostic. And the police haven't raided our office once! :-)

      -Pie
      • orangefly, on 02/13/2008, -0/+27a Jew, an Atheist, two Catholics, and an Agnostic walk into a bar....
      • aliengoods, on 02/13/2008, -6/+26The religious right isn't trying to change Freedom of Religion?!

        What cave do you dwell in?
      • Nougat, on 02/13/2008, -2/+7I notice that you don't work with any Muslims.
      • jgzman, on 02/13/2008, -1/+14Have you heard of a public figure reffered to in some circles as 'Huckabee?' He is the most promonent, but the religous right is constantly attempting to pass laws that are religous in nature. Heck, they already have, in some places.
        *Why can't you buy alcohol on Sunday? (some places?)
        *Why have we never elected a President who was not a Protestant? (one exception: JFK)
        *In god we trust? (not that I really have an issue with this one)
        *Why does Congress open with a prayer? (this one either)
        *Why does Congress have a Chaplin?
        *Why did everyone get bent out of shape when some congressperson swore in on the Koran?
        • PA42, on 02/13/2008, -1/+4Nixon was Quaker
          • jgzman, on 02/13/2008, -0/+4Are Quakers not Protestant?
            In any case, I was unaware of this. I stand corrected.
      • kinseyincanada, on 02/14/2008, -0/+4seriously i swear to god if i see you sign another god damn comment with -Pie im going to ***** snap.
      • ummagummas08, on 02/14/2008, -0/+2Yea dude, the signature makes you look like a giant flaming douche, and is probably why you keep getting buried.
    • KraftDinner101, on 02/13/2008, -1/+8I would love to hear what you said from a Minister, but I've never heard one say it.
      • mahuebel, on 02/13/2008, -0/+3How many Ministers have you talked to frequently about this issue?
        My dad is a Pastor in a very conservative Lutheran church, and what bratpack said is right in line with what my dad believes.
      • tedhead2k, on 02/13/2008, -2/+2Everyone on Digg is quick to say that but many of us Christians here know that most of us DO believe that and it's just the bad apples that don't. Maybe you would hear a minister say that if you went to another church.
        • rationalist, on 02/14/2008, -2/+7When is the last time you stood up to religious extremism from Christian religious and political leaders?

          I love how self-described "religious moderates" seem to spend all their time defending religion against the supposed assault by hateful atheists, yet stand by as authoritarianism, discrimination and hate are spread in their name.

          After 9/11, when atheists were blamed publicly by leaders in entertainment, corporations, religion and poiltics for a religious fundamentalist atrocity, no one stood up for us.

          When we demonstrated outside NBC after the anchor repeatedly said, "as we all know, there are no atheists in foxholes", not a single religious leader who we invited supported us - nor were any of you "moderates" there on the picket lines with us.

          In contrast, and even though they have been systematically erased from most textbooks, prominent atheists, agnostics and freethinkers stood shoulder to shoulder, arm in arm with civil rights leaders and activists from the religious community to support their struggle for freedom.

          No one stood up for us, no one stands up for us, all we hear from you "moderates" is the soft bigotry that MLK complained about from so-called "moderates" that says, "stop making noise, stop making trouble, be happy we moderates don't join forces with the extremists to shove you into the ocean".

          When is the last time your "enlightened" Church invited an atheist to speak to your congregation?

          Clean your own house and your own Church first, before you come accusing us of hate.
          • mahuebel, on 02/14/2008, -2/+1Didn't you (in the broad sense of you, not you personally, i.e. the billboard) accuse us first?

            And how can you say "supposed assault" it seems like every day there are at least 5 front page stories here on digg that blame everything wrong in the world on religion.
    • kingmanic, on 02/13/2008, -7/+7Marriage is a legal contract. The Gov ought not tamper with who can get married but is obligated to enforce the contract as well as having a deeply vested interest in the by products of that union.
      • john2kx, on 02/13/2008, -1/+12The government isn't interested in the "byproducts" of a marriage. Those things happen naturally, but people can get still get married without the intention of having kids.
      • Terr01, on 02/13/2008, -0/+12The "byproducts" of marriage in a reproductive sense aren't really the core issue, or else Marriage would be revoked/denied from infertile/elderly/choosing-not-to couples.
      • Corrosionx, on 02/13/2008, -1/+2Should government enforce all private contracts then? Why should I be taxed for you to have your contractor respect the agreement you had between yourself?
    • deanjarvis, on 02/13/2008, -29/+51Yes, religion is the problem, sir.
      • fleury29, on 02/13/2008, -18/+16No its not sir.
        If I believe in Jesus, and you don't nothing happens....it is the instant that I try to forcefully convert you. I can say "Hey this Jesus guy, well his is just awesome" and you can say "You know, I just don't think that" and if we go our separate ways....I just don't see a problem. If I said "BELIEVE JESUS IS YOUR SAVIOR OR DIE!" then that would be a problem, but it is not religion that is the problem, it is my thought process. There is nothing wrong with believing what ever the hell you want, its all in how you act.
        • hollerith, on 02/13/2008, -6/+5Unless of course it is your inaction, i.e. what you condone that is the problem?
          • fleury29, on 02/13/2008, -1/+3Alright Ill give you that but that still falls under action so to speak. By not doing something you are still acting. I am just not sure what I would condone as a Christian that would fall under that assumption.
          • IKORKYI, on 02/13/2008, -0/+4ummm keeping condoms away from africans to save millions of lives from HIV would be one that i could think of off the top of my head.

            also the obligation to "open eyes" and "convert" others to your religion dictated by your religion as one of several requirements as a christian to get into heaven
          • mahuebel, on 02/13/2008, -1/+1requirements to get into Heaven are sooo old testament dude. Besides, what harm do we do to you to ask you if you believe in God and why or why not? Is it not our free speech to do so?
            Inconsequentially, That billboard is somewhat offensive to me, but I would never argue to take it down. There's no difference between what that billboard is doing and what we Christians do when we try to convert.
        • awills, on 02/13/2008, -1/+4While your behavior in your example is cool, religions often encourage their followers to go out and convert. Not only that, but believing that your religion is some sort of absolute truth often means ignoring the moral structures of others and trying to impose your own religiously based morals on the rest of the world. If you really believe in the infallibility of your own religion, this makes sense, because you are "right." And that is a problem.
        • rationalist, on 02/14/2008, -0/+7Fleury, you are confusing belief with religion.
          What an individual believes is not the issue.
          However, inherent in the organization into "religion" is an authoritarian, divisive mindset that relies on recruitment and indoctrination as the means to perpetuate.
          The problem is religion, because religion is inherently incompatible with free society, free thought, and democratic self-governance. It is the nature of organized religion.
          Note that the billboard did not say, "imagine a world without belief" or "imagine a world without faith", it said, "imagine no religion", and the organization that paid for the billboard is called the "Freedom From Religion Foundation".
        • PrettyMuchBryce, on 02/14/2008, -1/+6The problem is belief without evidence. Belief without evidence is a DANGEROUS path because the limits to what it can justify are endless. Muslims that blow up people, christians during the crusades, or even the westboro baptist church. These people all have one thing in common and that is belief without evidence. They believe something so firmly without having any real evidence. They believe they are doing actions that 'God' would be proud of and that they will be rewarded for those actions. It makes complete and utter sense why they would do them. But you have to stop this sort of thinking from the source. If you have no evidence for believing something or evidence that is irrational in nature then there is no reason you can't fall into the same trap. Logic follows suit (even though your first premise is unsound) and ends up with some horrible atrocity being done.
          • Edrick, on 02/14/2008, -1/+1Everyone read this again; it hits the nail right on the head.
          • JulioChavez, on 02/14/2008, -2/+3No. You are both very short-sighted. First off, just because "Islamofascists" believe God wants them to kill people does not justify it. So, your logic breaks down in the second sentence. It a psychotic person justifies violence by saying "God spoke to me and told me to do it", that doesn't mean that belief in God is the source of the violent act. It's the psychoses.

            Also, "belief without evidence" is also known as "faith". Aside from spirituality, it is also the driving force behind every scientific discovery that started with a hypothesis.

            You go on to spout more gibberish: "...you have to stop this sort of thinking... ends up with some horrible atrocity..." Are you a neocon? You reason exactly like one. Belief without evidence is one of humanity's greatest strengths. However, so is their tendency to question established systems of thought. So, even though I believe atheists to be unimaginative people who are driven by fear of the unknown to place far, far too much weight on what we as humans are able to perceive, it is a valuable point of view. "Free-thinkers" they are not - quite the opposite, actually.
          • PrettyMuchBryce, on 02/14/2008, -0/+2Julio this seems a subject you are quite emotionally invested in, and considering your strange and inaccurate generalization of atheists I would suspect that you yourself are a creationist. Please explain how believing that God wants you to do something does not justify it? In your mind if you believe your creator is asking a duty of you and offering an ETERNAL reward why isn't it justified? Historically you don't have to look far to see that this happens over and over again. Your creator is asking something of you, therefore making it RIGHT in your head. So how is doing something RIGHT -- wrong? That sounds like a complete contradiction to me. I'd imagine you have a hard time understanding this as a creationist because to you personally, there are certain things that god does ask, and certain things he doesn't. So to you Julio, I'm sure you think there is some logical way of discerning what god wants and what he doesn't. But quite honestly you can find any meaning you go looking for in the bible (or the koran, or any doctrine for that matter), and people have. I see no faults in my reasoning, but you're making yourself sound a little silly. If you can do a better job making your points without getting emotional and calling me a 'neocon' (a weightless term that does not even pertain to the content of this discussion) then please go ahead.
      • IKORKYI, on 02/13/2008, -7/+3yes it is

        faith is dictated by God, religion is dictated by man

        if religion only involved jesus, things would be great. unfortunately you have people out there saying that I can't get married because I'm gay, they say that I should die because I don't follow islamic law, they say I'm going to hell because I have sex with my girlfriend, they say I need to get out of the country because this is one nation under God - therefore you need to believe in God to live here.

        youre naive, it you have a right to be so.
        • darkcthulhu, on 02/14/2008, -1/+2The invisible man does love us all, doesn't he??? LOL.
      • LeeSoong, on 02/13/2008, -0/+5Lord Xenu finds your lack of faith, encouraging.
      • Corrosionx, on 02/13/2008, -0/+4The problem is always the entity which has a monopoly on the legal initiation of force.

        When the Church had that power, the Church was the problem. Today it's the government.
      • SadistIntention, on 02/14/2008, -1/+2No, it isn't. Religion does not ALWAYS take control of people. The one problem with agnostics is that they always feel every religion is created specifically to screw people out of money/life/power. It isn't. Whether you like to acknowledge it or not, some people ACTUALLY believe that God exists. Of course that isn't even conceivable to you, because you don't believe that. Who's to say you're more correct then they are, though? Socrates said that the only true wisdom is the acknowledgment of your own lack of understanding. There's no factual evidence that God exists, you will argue. But is there any evidence to say that someone/something like him doesn't?

        Looking at the past 50 years it's pretty clear that the world is moving towards atheism. However, being an atheist myself, I find it terribly troubling that the vast majority of atheists are much more zealous than Christians(who have, more or less, dominated western culture). I expect to see the same kind of persecution on Christians when they are the minority to atheists, if I live to see that day. Shame on you for hating someone, even if its a group of people under the undefined term "religion", for something they truly believe.
        • Acolyte357, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1Ok, your rant is odd at best.
          To start, you butchered the Socrates quote "True wisdom comes to each of us when we realize how little we understand about life, ourselves, and the world around us."
          Please name one religion that does not ask for it's disciple's money/time/influence.
          An agnostic does not believe in God nor disbelieve in God. I think the word you are looking for is atheist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
          "There's no factual evidence that God exists, you will argue. But is there any evidence to say that someone/something like him doesn't?"
          Lets explain this to you people again, it is impossible to prove nonexistence. (eg: prove the flying spaghetti monster does not exist.)
          If you believe that atheists are more zealous than the Christians then I would love to challenge you to prove it. Please troll through the new and find me the accounts of the many protests by atheists and the great and wonderful mega atheists gathering centers.
          As an above poster pointed out faith is fine, believe what you want; religion however, is not.
          • LeeSoong, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1Buddhism.
            I have found and been given many free resources from them,
            never have they asked for anything. (no money, no work, no 'influence')
            They have been much nicer than evangelical born again Christians,
            much calmer and open and accepting of people...

            And the nice thing, they don't promote Buddhism! They offer insightful meditation and relaxation techniques, no religion required. Just sit down, breath, and relax - it's great.

            The Born Again Christians (BACs) tend to get emotional and rely on the fantastical.
            Lots of good music, fun singing and dancing about, combined with
            conversations that would make any Anthropologist reach for
            a mythology encyclopedia to look up all the ancient cultural references to decode what people are talking about. A fascinating sub-culture of beings.

            BACs do tend to ask for money, sometimes lots of it... Namely because they like to build these 'mega-church' buildings, that you've seen on TV. I'm gonna guess that it costs a lot of money to buy multi-acre sites, put up huge parking lots and multiple buildings, and keep the lights, HVAC, water, etc. all running. Running full scale religious compounds must be quite expensive.

            The Scientologists I've met were very nice to talk too. They were pitching their books and tapes, but their programs seemed very expensive and so I bet a lot of people back away at that point. Scientology seems to use the engram / thatan / get yourself clear plan - stuff you could do for free with guided meditation without all the science fiction. Scientology seems to take and repackage beliefs that are readily available from other sources.
            Hey, if you look at the history of the Catholic Church, you'll find they made 1 or 2 mistakes along the way, in their quest for global domination too. Catholics do have a talent for building very complex and decorative architecture, paintings, statues, etc. - something a cultural anthropologist can actually study and enjoy.

            So I agree with you, positive practices are beneficial,
            but Planet grabbing religions bent on global domination, just a bit over the top...

            It helps to keep it all in perspective - in 1000 years people will dig up Christian and Scientology artifacts the same way we now treat Aztec and Mayan temples today...
            something interesting to add to the local museum.
    • LeeSoong, on 02/13/2008, -5/+101" Imagine No Billboards " billboards would be nice,
      - Zone them, outlaw them, ban them.

      Billboards look cheap, lower your property values, block the view, advertise junk, and are generally very, very annoying - especially the new giant bright flashing lighted LCD billboards.

      Probably cause more car accidents because people get distracted by whatever,
      and drop their cell phone in their coffee while applying makeup and driving . . .
      • rationalist, on 02/14/2008, -3/+6Says Digg's resident Scientology apologist.
        • MOJIRA, on 05/17/2008, -2/+4Who cares, LeeSoong makes a good point.
          • LeeSoong, on 02/14/2008, -0/+21st Amendment apologist, to correct you, my brother.

            Attacking any religion in the USA goes against the constitution,
            I do not need to like that religion, but Scientology has all
            the same rights as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Catholic Church,
            or any other group. And like any other group if they perform illegal actions, those individuals need corrected by the secular government for breaking laws.

            That is the whole point of free speech for All.

            No matter what mythology people believe in, as long as they are well behaved, they can worship the sun, or the trees, or Ron Paul, if they want to - and still enjoy tax free status all at the same time...

            If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the USA, not Scientology.
          • Acolyte357, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1@LeeSoong
            "as long as they are well behaved" ahh so we agree Scientology needs to have it's tax free status removed and not considered a religion.
    • jcastillo81, on 02/13/2008, -4/+5You took the words right out of my keyboard, bratpack8!
    • Nightfall, on 02/13/2008, -12/+17Very good points bratpack8. Let me add that it is typically the extremists that cause a problem with the hatred and bigotry. Look at the Muslim religion for instance. You say the word Muslim, and a majority of people here in the US think terrorist and 9/11. Its amazing how a small group of people who kill in the name of god categorize everyone in their religion so easily. Extremist Christians like Falwell and Robertson did the same thing in some peoples eyes.

      The extremists are just another part of this issue. Then you have the fact that people don't have religious tolerance for other religions. Thats not saying a Christian should believe what a Muslim believes, but the Christian should acknowledge the Muslim's beliefs. There should be a level of courtesy, an attempt to not be overbearing, and to move on. Instead, there is no room for movement. There is a major blockade at which some people just will not accept another religious belief.

      Even Agnostics and Atheists are puting themselves into this category. Sure, the agnostic and atheist community think of themselves as free thinkers. The problem is that they are just as intolerant of religions as the people who practice religion. I have seen Agnostics and Atheists become a religion in itself. You have extremists there as well, willing to do what it takes to spread that there is no god. They are willing to bash anyone who says they believe and claim their god is a sham. As an Agnostic, I find this behavior disgusting. Why can't people just live and let live? I guess the whole overbearing part comes in right there and its a damn shame too.

      Again, it all comes down to tolerance.
      • electricalen, on 02/13/2008, -5/+10I think you have Agnostics and Atheists confused. If they are spreading the word that there is no god, they are undeniably Atheists. Agnostics, by definition, do not take a side on that issue. Lumping them together, IMO is unfair.
        • nullifidian0, on 02/13/2008, -0/+4Agnostics, by definition, are not mutually exclusive with atheists.
        • Nightfall, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1I stand corrected and I apologize.
      • macweirdo42, on 02/13/2008, -3/+12I don't think that's fair. Being upset at atheists and agnostics being intolerant of religious people is like being upset about civil rights activists being intolerant of the KKK. I'm not necessarily saying it's right, but I will say, it's incredibly difficult to be tolerant of intolerance.
        • Nightfall, on 02/14/2008, -0/+2I agree with you. Its a very tough road to drive down. Lets look at the facts of the matter though. Religion isn't going anywhere. It has been around for thousands of years. Atheism is becoming a religion or a cult on its own right now with some extremists willing to throw gas on the fire by claiming what others believe is a sham. Course, this doesn't take into account the other religions out there that do the same. If it isn't going to end anytime soon, and people don't take a step towards tolerance, we are in for a world of hurt.
          Course, your statement does prove a good point. Maybe that dream is in vain. People are not willing to be "tolerant of intolerance" because anything they see as intolerant is going to be met with anger, frustration, and bigotry. I guess we can look forward to more and more intolerance down the road.
      • Fafnir43, on 02/13/2008, -1/+3In the US specifically, there's a /lot/ of reason for an atheistic backlash against religion. It's not right, I'll grant you, but... Well, instead of "civil rights activists being intolerant of the KKK", think "segregation-era black people being intolerant of white people". Not always justified, but justified a regrettably large part of the time.
      • nullifidian0, on 02/13/2008, -2/+8Why should anyone accept anyone else's belief? Accept a right to *have* a belief, but accept the belief itself? No chance.

        And you're just as bigotted to seek to try and put the words in the mouths of all of us other atheists (no capital, agnostic or otherwise), and then have the audacity to claim that we're now a religion (odd, with no scriptures, no holy writ, no commandments, no priests, no dogma, no churches or temples, no tenets, no tithing, no traditions, no rituals, no edicts and, strangely enough, no god beliefs).

        And what do these atheist "extremists" do? Say "keep you dogma away from me"? Say "prove your claims"? Is that it? Are you trying to compare say Hitchens' polemics (arguably one of the most "extremist" atheists) to the actions of the likes of christian abortion-doctor murderers or islamic suicide bombers? Get a sense of ***** perspective.

        FYI, seeing as you don't know and I hate to break it to you, but if the answer to the question "do you believe there is a god or gods?" (and the emphasis is indeed on *belief*) is anything but "yes", then you're an atheist, which, by the way, is defined as someone who doesn't have a god belief, rather than someone who believes there are no gods - a separate concept but most people appear to be hugely ignorant of the difference. Agnosticism deals with *knowledge*, and anyone who claims to *know* that a god does exist (or indeed does not, it cuts both ways) either has to prove it, or STFU.
        • pearlygate, on 02/14/2008, -1/+1buried for saying STFU.
          • LeeSoong, on 02/17/2008, -0/+1You have a 1st amendment right to tell someone to STFU,
            but they have the 1st amendment right to ignore you
            and reply, 'Hell no, FTW ! '

            But in most circumstances - it is nice to be polite.
        • Nightfall, on 02/14/2008, -1/+1Sorry that you don't agree with my thoughts. Lets expand a bit though on Atheism being a religion though.
          A definition of religion is: "the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices". Sounds like Atheism to me. Look at all the members of the Atheist community gathering together to share ideas, fight religion, voice their beliefs there is no god, and so on. Sure, there is no church, no scriptures, but there is a huge gathering of people and many of them are grouped up in various ways. It certainly sounds like a religion of sorts to me.
          Now, you can say I am full of it and so on, but I think I am pretty accurate in my analysis. Just one person's opinion though so take it how you want. :)
          As for extremists, not all are violent. Lets look at a common Christian. He doesn't go around voicing his opinion on TV or to friends. He doesn't try to convert people. He is a silent person that might go to church and might not, but doesn't go out of his way. Now, the extremists are the people who are in front of the TV cameras, claim that gays should go to hell, claim that those who don't believe the word of god are heathens and burn in hell, and so on.
          So, what do the extremist Atheists do? Hand out pamphlets to people leaving church asking them to think again about the god they worship. You think that doesn't stir the pot? Here is a good article I read on this issue.
          http://atheistrevolution.blogspot.com/2007/03/athe ...

          • nullifidian0, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1You've decided to pick *a* definition of religion that you think encompasses atheism, and run with it. A quick search of the major online dictionaries give a good number of working definitions that include that, but most also have ideas of supernatural agencies (i.e. gods and the like), a practice of shared worship of same, and various other practices associated with what most people commonly consider as bona fide religions.

            But, for the sake of argument, let's run with your definition of "religion": What beliefs and practices are those you mean? A lack of a particular belief is, surprisingly it seems, not a belief in itself - the fact that it needs to be called a *lack* of a particular belief in the first place should be something of a clue.

            And no, not all atheists gather together, least of all to "fight religion". There are atheists that just don't give a ***** and ignore the whole debacle as best they can, there are atheists who are completely barking (c.f. Raëlians), there are de facto "religious" atheists (some flavours of buddhists), and who-knows how many other different kinds, so where exactly are we singing from the same song-sheet, to reuse and abuse a cliché?

            Where is this huge gathering of atheists? Where do we meet regularly? What are our shared practices when we get there? What do I, as a secular humanistic atheist have in common with, for example, a Raëlian, aside from a lack of a belief in gods? I guess both of us do, if we're able, breath air, eat food and sit the right way around on the toilet. What is it about my lack of belief in gods that gives me any commonality with anyone else on the planet?

            Also, who says that "there is no god"? That's just as much a *****, dare I say, faith-based position as those that say there is/are (a) god(s). As I said before, and have elsewhere, saying "I don't believe in gods" (the agnostic (not knowing) atheist (not believing) position - where I am) IS NOT THE SAME as saying "there are no gods" (the gnostic (knowing) atheist (not believing)). If anyone claims to know that for certain, I'm going to ask them to provide their evidence just as I am the certain theist, and call ***** if they can't deliver.

            I'm not saying you're full of it, I'm saying that you're misrepresenting a position that you seem to have no clue about.

            And, as for your analogy on "extremists", are you trying to compare a pamphlet to, say, a grenade, a sniper's bullet or a semtex vest? Who suffers if a theist receives an atheist's pamphlet? I'd expect the theist to screw it up, think "silly atheist" and then get on with their life. At the very most they might have a bit of a shout. Nobody has lost a limb, nobody has died, nobody has lost a child or loved one. The most that most atheists will make one lose is a sense of superiority that has been imbued from childhood by constant exposure to religious dogma.

            Saying that, any atheist handing out pamphlets in front of a church is, IMO, an *****. Unless they have a good reason for doing so (e.g. if said church previously picketed a meetup of atheists, and they're doing it to make a point).

            And, way to go, comparing a "common" christian with an "extremist" atheist. How about comparing extremists from both (or all) modes of thought and seeing where the real extremism lies?

            And I'm quite familiar with AR, thank you.
      • Edrick, on 02/14/2008, -0/+2When will people realize that, when put into the particular framework of their religion, the extremists aren't the crazy ones, it's the moderates who are crazy. The extremists are doing things by the book, taking things to their next logical step according to their dogma. They didn't hijack anything, it's the non-violent moderates who are out of place in religion.
      • darkcthulhu, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1I seriously can't stop myself from breaking out in laughter when someone tells me they go to church every Sunday and talk to an invisible man in their head daily. Ah, comedy.
    • illycoffee, on 02/13/2008, -15/+4Religion and force are inevitably used together throughout history. There is a new religion in this country and it is growing fast -- and it isn't the Mormons either...see more info here: http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Is_Barack_Obama_ ...
    • dstz, on 02/13/2008, -2/+22"People should voluntarily choose whether or not to go to church, support a church or religion and how they worship."

      That's purely wishful thinking. Religion is chosen for you by social environment in nearly all cases. If you're smart enough to see the ***** coming and choose a different religion than your surroundings, chances are that you'll finish atheist anyway. I don't see 80% of Christians in India nor 80% of Shintoists in the USA.
      • emildorbell, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1You are so right. How do people not get this? I'd like to get some numbers on how many people actually "chose" their religion.
        • stealthc, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1I was brought up in my religion, but as I reached adulthood I questioned it, examined it, looked at my own life, and then chose it on purpose. I am a follower of Jesus Christ and couldn't be happier about it.
    • Joeyshinobi88, on 02/13/2008, -7/+3the church doesn't need to force anybody to do anything - peoples act on their own.
      • IKORKYI, on 02/13/2008, -1/+3explain the crusades.
        • zaptoman, on 02/13/2008, -1/+1Explain Muslim aggression towards Europe and Africa 400 years BEFORE the crusades.
          • IKORKYI, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1humanity is godless and naturally aggressive/territorial due to natural selection.
        • HunterSeeker42, on 02/13/2008, -2/+3Government + religion = bad

          Government away from religion = good
        • homerang, on 02/14/2008, -0/+2MONEY. It was a religion sanctioned rape and pillage. Save your soul, wet your blade, and try to make it rich.
      • Kaitsu, on 02/13/2008, -1/+3Free indeed. "Obey, or you'll burn in hell for an eternity of pain and suffering." or "Kill the infidels or no 100 virgins for you when you die".
      • fokov, on 02/13/2008, -1/+3people are sheep when they are born and will believe anything people tell them. If you don't believe me, keep waiting for Santa Claus to give you gifts.
      • darkcthulhu, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1Sure. The church and the religious politicians never influence laws or policy based on their crazy belief in an invisible man?
      • Acolyte357, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1Children look to their parents for answers amongst other things like food, shelter, language...
        So no, people are not "sheep" when they are born, they are ignorant.
    • electricalen, on 02/13/2008, -0/+7It's amusing that members of the church want to change the state and federal laws to suit their beliefs, however, they have no interest in making sure members of their own religion obey these beliefs. I'll bet anything that if you gave the Catholic (or whomever you pick that has strict rules) church the option to restrict their members so they cannot divorce, cannot abort, cannot use protection, etc they would never do it. They would lose their membership immediately.

      I would be 100% for a bill in Congress that gave churches the right to make their members sign a contract and make abortion clinics keep a registry of people who have signed on. If you quit the church, you can be taken off the list. If the church can survive that, THEN they can start talking about making the rest of the country obey.
      • keenfrenzy, on 02/13/2008, -0/+3That would violate the separation of church and state. The state cannot be involved in church matters, such as keeping a state or federally-reviewed registry of the members. If it makes you feel any better, some churches DO revoke membership for people if they divorce, have abortions, kill people, etc. after becoming members of the church.

        The religion and the church do what they can to make sure the members abide by the taught beliefs, but Church cannot physically control a person if that person chooses to act improperly or hatefully toward another person. These actions are always condemned by any decent church, but if any crime is committed, it becomes the jurisdiction of the state to prosecute said crime. Churches cannot imprison people for violating the Ten Commandments or what have you, only reprimand those members who choose to do so.
        • xptoast, on 02/14/2008, -1/+3The seperation of church and state is a one way street. Government cant ban church but church and religious things can be used in Government. As soon as the church in the state scews with other churches then it then violates the first rule which is it cant screw with churches. See how that works? Logic anyone?
        • Wade, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1Comment rescinded.
    • ICSU, on 02/13/2008, -6/+9Religion is not the problem?
      Can you think about any other reason why would otherwise peaceful people want to kill others (Muhammad cartoons and bear come to mind) if it wasn't for religious dogma?
      • HunterSeeker42, on 02/13/2008, -1/+4Hmm...

        Jealousy
        Racism, sexism, etc.
        Greed
        Lust
        Love
        Resources
        Desperation at their situation
        Plain old evilness

        And good old human nature
        • CamperBob, on 02/14/2008, -1/+4I can argue against someone displaying any of those character flaws. They are human emotions, and most of us learn as adults to respect each others' emotions while not allowing them to rule over us.

          But you can't argue with someone's idea of what God told them. I mean, hey, it's God's will, right? "Hey, don't blame me for torching that women's clinic... take it up with the Man upstairs. He told me to do it. Why do you hate Jesus?"

          That's why religion shouldn't be a part of political discourse.
          • xptoast, on 02/14/2008, -1/+1That's not religion. Anyone using God as a defense against something He clearly outlined as wrong is foolish in using God as a defense. You did it not own up to it. If God wanted to torch the place He would. He leaves us mostly to our own devices. I don't have time to debate the entire concepts of the Bible right now but wow it is ridiculous for people to hate the TRUE faith and not the actions of the stupid people not using the TRUE ways of that faith. That is just stupid. That is like if my religion said we were supposed to eat only rabbits on weekends and then stole someones rabbit and ate it. The faith said eat rabbits not steal rabbits you fool. So then you come along and say yea they steal rabbits because their faith said to eat rabbits. Yes eat them not steal them. Quiet now you insolent fools. I am glad you are dug down because it is completely ignorant and illogical what you said.
      • kediXed, on 02/14/2008, -0/+0Oil...?
    • scoottie, on 02/13/2008, -0/+10People that have a void in their life and are weak willed look for anything to make them feel whole. Religion usually fits this nicely since you can totally give yourself over to the church/mosque/temple/etc. This is not to say that all people that follow a religious life are weak willed and desperate, but the ones that are usually are the easiest to manipulate.
    • vertinox, on 02/13/2008, -0/+7People who need politics or violence to enforce their religions message have very little faith in it.
    • norman619, on 02/13/2008, -4/+4I think most people like to blame religion for the problems we have because they can't deal with the real root cause of our problems. Human nature. We are ego driven and combative by nature. This combination does not make the wonderful world John Lennon describes in his song Imagine. That world is not compatible with human nature. It's a great thing to shoot for but people should temper that vision with an understanding of reality. We have always been fighting with each other. If it's not religion then it's skin color or ethnicity or class envy or eye color or hair color or nationality or who knows what else. We will always find some stupid reason to fight with each other. This may sound a bit pessimistic but it is not. It's being realistic.
    • crimsonalucard, on 02/13/2008, -3/+13Everyone thinks this religion thing is a social problem and while it is a social problem, the problem goes much deeper. It is a matter of truth and fiction, Fact and fantasy. What kind of insanity does it take for a person to believe that a man named jesus was resurrected from the dead? If I told you elvis was resurrected, I would be labeled as insane, not so if I said it was jesus. This is the heart of the problem: One part of the population realizes that there is something wrong with believing these dangerous and irrational myths, the other half is totally blind and unable to see the absurdity behind religion. Heck the bible is telling you straight to your face that some guy named Jesus healed peoples wounds (instantly) with magical powers. The fact that there are people in this population who cannot see what is so wrong and so absurd with believing something like that; the fact that their are people even willing to fight and defend their right to believe in these old legends and fantasy stories shows that even as advanced, modern, hi-tech, as our scientific civilization is, there are still inherint problems with it as a major portion of the people can't seperate truth and fiction.

      Now I know that a lot of you people think that its okay for most of the population to believe in such religous fantasies as long as they respect each other's beliefs. But what if someone's religion, someone's belief inherintly flies in the face of common reality and defies tolerance?
      What if a Radical Muslim honestly believes that he'll go to heaven for flying a plane into a building? Does religous tolerance apply here? Should I respect this muslims belief or should I tell him how insane his plans are? In a case like this is it okay to enforce and restrict religous behavior? Even the less radical muslims in Iran have beliefs that extrude with sexist behavior: women are treated as second class creatures who are born to serve men... Should religous beliefs like this be respected?
      It doesn't even end with the Mulims...In America, a major portion of christians want to modify science and infest our educational system with their new religously inspired theory called creationism.. Should we be tolerant of this movement? or should we realize the inherint difference between religion and reality and enforce schools to teach what is real.

      What my point is, is that religion consists of mythological fantasies that make radical conjectures about the nature of reality. People take these fantasies as truth and in doing so it has the potential for irrational and dangerous behavior. Making people tolerant of each other when their religious belief system is not tolerant itself doesn't make sense. To truly solve the problem, people must understand what religion is and why it is not real.

      On the surface it seems like a war between tolerance and intolerance, but like I said, it is just the surface. The true fight is between science and religion; between reality and old mythological fairy tails. You have the right to believe whatever religion you want to believe, but what you believe has nothing to do with what is true.
      • xptoast, on 02/14/2008, -9/+1What kind of diluted human would think they were a mutated strain of DNA? What kind of human would think that all mater came from nowhere? Big bang? Did you forget that that itself had to come from somewhere? Science tries to define everything and how it works. It tries to find the finite in an infinite universe. If you somehow think the universe is not infinite then you must think that it has a wall somewhere or somehow wraps upon itself. You cant find the finite answer to the infinite universe. You lose. Having a God is the ONLY logical answer. Of course which one is a different debate but in this case of you thinking that there is no God, well you lose. I understand the concept of evolution. I understand particles and matter. If you have questions please ask but I seriously hope you don’t really think you are a piece of mutation from particles gathered by chance from a Big Bang that would have had to have a beginning as well. That my friend is just denial of your own existence. Well...well... Well nothing. Just try to realize you do exist and that existence had to come from something outside of this closed system we call reality. Ask questions then digg down, unless you don’t want to ask and possibly find out the truth. You have more chance of finding the truth here than you have being a mutation from particles that came from a big bang that had to come from somewhere else.
        • ShnowDoggie, on 02/14/2008, -1/+4You have the right to chose to be ignorant. That right should remain. The rest of us should have the right not be held back your mythology. Deliberations on that are ongoing.
          • xptoast, on 02/14/2008, -3/+1I am not ignorant as I see further in the logic stream than you obviously do. You see a few steps ahead in this chess game as I have seen much further to the root concepts. Lose and fail you do.(yoda for grammer nazis)
          • ShnowDoggie, on 02/14/2008, -0/+3The grammer nazis, small digg type, and lack of edit. You get credit for that you do. But, you both miss the point and show little knowledge of DNA and Darwin's theory of evolution.

            PS: can't, doesn't.
        • crimsonalucard, on 02/14/2008, -1/+3You misunderstand the true nature of science. Science is a method of proof not a system of beliefs. Realize that all the Big Band and evolution stuff aren't just what people believe.. these things are the best available conclusions based on the observational evidence we possess. These are conclusions that will be modified when better observational evidence presents itself. Basically in short: SCIENCE is the best possible CONCLUSION arrived at based on what we OBSERVE.

          "Just try to realize you do exist and that existence had to come from something outside of this closed system we call reality."

          How do you know it comes from outside of the 'system' when no one in the world even understands the true nature of the 'system' itself. Can you even define what 'outside' of the system means? Can you even wrap your mind around what it means to exist? No one in this world can, if we know virtually nothing about these things, how is GOD all of a sudden the most logical answer? By knowing virtually nothing about these things GOD only becomes an arbitrary answer out of an almost infinite possibilities. We don't have any observational or theoretical understanding, therefore, logically, no conclusion is possible.

          Lets try to make the logical jump from A to B here. How does existance automatically mean there's a god? You don't even have the ability to define or know what existance is in its entirety, how can you arrive at conclusions using just that as a basis?
          • xptoast, on 02/14/2008, -4/+1Did you read what I wrote or did you skim and just assume that I was generalizing about science as a belief? Ultimately it is but that is not what I stated. I stated that logicaly with congruent thoughts such as numbers being counted the truth is that science cant have a finite truth to an infinite question. You cant come from nowhere...or at least that is what science intends to prove. However it also intends to show how we are here. That doesnt make much LOGICAL sense does it.
          • crimsonalucard, on 02/14/2008, -0/+3I read it.... You gotta read my response more carefully. What I basically said is science does not seek to answer what cannot be answered. in your words: Science NEVER gave a finite answer to infinite question. It only can answer what we observe.

            Anyway, You should read what I said again. I'll tell you, I read yours more then once before I answered.
        • IllBeBack, on 02/14/2008, -1/+4"Having a God is the only logical answer?"

          How so? If God created everything, what/who created God, and what/who created that which created God, and so on, ad infinitum.

          You don't know anymore than any scientist that the universe is in fact infinite. All science is attempting to do is make the best guess possible with the information that is available to it at the time. But religion instead has only a book of made-up stories with almost no basis in fact and with no supporting evidence.

          Science > Religion

          WAY greater than...
          • xptoast, on 02/14/2008, -6/+1Read much? The concept of the big bang and evolution seems just as insane as God does to you. Not able to be proven by science as science cant define that in which is infinite. Numbers? How many are there? Infinite. Oh wait I thought math and science had finite answers. No they dont. Why do you think the word infinite exists. You can only dig so far before you no longer have a smaller building block. God is the only answer that is logical because otherwise you have no way to define reality. God/Creator. A name. As I said you just have to define what creator/God later. But you will dig and dig and dig forever and never get a finite answer as there is an infinite ammount of questions to why things happen and exist. Logic proves there is no finite answer. This is akin to there being an infinite ammount of numbers. Science is just like numbers as one must come before and after the number you currently have. Infinite proves our limited thinking as well as that the finite concepts are not for us to reason. God or a creator is the only answer. I have this all worked out. It is quite easy to see if you stop running from the truth. Denial is what secular thought is all about. Not finding the truth. Its about rationalizing the false concepts that cant be proven. So pretty much what I am saying is I dont care if you think we are all a dream or what but wherever and whatever we came from is still a thing or a place which would be a thing. Science proves just as numbers do that there is something before and after everything. Creator had to have no need for: Time, Universe, Reason, Sentient Existence.

            Simply put....Your big bang is a belief as it cannot be proven as my God cant be proven to you. Proof is the existence you are living. Proof itself is a concept as all things are. Reality is just what we base those proofs and concepts off of. At the end of the day all we are is a large conglomeration of energy particles that in no way can be from a random occurence of a big bang that must have a beginning as well as whatever came before that thing that made the big bang.

            -1,0,1 is no different in the concept of that science shows that a concept must come before and after another such as 123412341234, 123412341235,123412341236 0 is no different than the 123412341235 in that it has something before and after. You cannot escape infinite concepts. Science however tries to find the finite answer to such as just that.
          • CamperBob, on 02/14/2008, -0/+11. Disagree with Big Bang cosmology
            2. Come up with better theory, supported by evidence
            3. Profit! (Nobel prize, movie rights, lucrative merchandising deals)

            1. Disagree with a religion
            2. Get burned at the stake
            3. Ow, it burns
        • JulioChavez, on 02/14/2008, -1/+1I'll have to side with xptoast here, kind of.. I don't think that "God exists" has any logic to it whatsoever. It is one of many ways to explain the ( currently ) unexplainable. I think we can all agree that we have only begun to expose the true nature of reality. One possibility is that we are here by random chance. Another is that God put us here for reasons He doesn't feel we need to know right now. Or, maybe it's somewhere in between. We Christians believe that God is with us not only because of some fantastic stories that our parents told us when we were young but also because we feel His presence in our every day lives.
          Going around saying it's irrational to believe in God because we have no "evidence" is being disingenuous. We all know that there exist unknown truths that don't present themselves with physical evidence. Perhaps someday, they will. I'm actually pretty sure there will be more scientific discoveries before long and personally believe that spirituality will be become inexorably intertwined with science.
          Don't forget - Jesus taught tolerance and compassion. Intolerance is a mental disorder, unfortunately propagated through religious extremism. Please don't confuse Christianity with the Catholic church or any other.
          • crimsonalucard, on 02/14/2008, -1/+0So few people understand what I'm tring to say because its hard for me to explain my concept but I think you got it. I just want to clarify things a bit:

            When I say an infinite amount of possibilities I do mean infinite. We have virtually no information about our existance or about our reality that we can say anything and it will be impossible to prove it wrong. I can say the universe was created by a flying hippo in a jump suit and it cannot be proven wrong.

            The conlusion arrived here is that God is as aritrary a possibility as a flying hippo. I choose not to believe in god for the same reason I choose not to believe in the flying hippo.

            You are right that there exists unknown truths that don't present themselves with physical evidence. Peraps someday they will, but since we have utterly no clue about whats going to happen on that day I'm not going to make arbitrary guesses about flying hippos or God.

            Like I said before, just clarifying my stance, now back to what you said. Your post implies that the basis of your belief in god stems from the fact that you 'feel' his presence. To this I can only say that it is not always wise to trust what you feel.
      • CamperBob, on 02/14/2008, -0/+3Exactly. The "fellowship" attributes of religion are no longer survival advantages once a civilization develops nukes.

        Nothing God ever threatened to do to us in the Bible is all that scary, compared to what we can do to ourselves in God's name.
      • Ballchinian, on 02/14/2008, -1/+2Religion does not correlate to the flawed thinking that it is okay to violently force your morality on others. Take religion out of the equation, and people would have tried to justify violence another way in order to gain power.
      • kediXed, on 02/14/2008, -1/+1And what is true? What Scientists tell us? You know, I still have never seen an atom in my life, I can only choose to believe if scientists are right, or not. I take it on good faith that they are.

        What happens one day if you wake up and feel that there is something more to this short existence? You want to find the ultimate truth, the whole point of it all. Then want do we have to turn to? Scientists only ever explain what already exists, just in terms that we can understand, patterns they recognize, and consistent behaviors that they can then label. This doesn't help my search for the whole point of my existence. What then do I turn too? Unfortunately there are only a few texts that deal with these answers. Nothing a scientist has ever discovered has helped me.

        So now I have to decide if I can believe these 'myths' presented by texts such as the Bible. Now, the idea of an 'atom' was once just a 'theory'. If one scientist decides to believe this 'theory', and work with it, it may just unlock a whole slew of new ideas and discoveries. So I trial it, and choose to believe in these 'myths', on good faith, and before I know it it starts to unlock amazing revelations and begins to reveal ultimate truths, for me. Why is that so bad?

        Isn't science responsible for things like televisison, which brings advertising to the world, which can 'brain wash' millions of viewers to feel that they need to by items they really don't need? So now Science is feeding consumerism, and I find my child constantly asking for McDonalds, even though he has never eaten it? Does this make Science bad? Or only certain people and groups who use the discoveries and principles of Science?
        • Lockean, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1Just because you have chosen not to actually ever take the initiative to see an atom does not mean that it is in any way illogical. It comes down to rationality. Science can back up what it "tells" us.
          If you need someone to tell what the point of your whole existence is then you are facing some kind of existential crisis that does not really have a place in a discussion of rationality and tolerance. There are many more sources of developed and secular thought on the philosophy of existence that does not rely on absurd claims of magic and god.
          Yes, science has in fact been used for negative purposes, as has religion. The crux of the argument is that the idea of religion is a fundamentally flawed basis for anything, as it is the opposite of rationality or realistic thought. Once you can accept the ideas that religion attempts to impose, it is not that difficult to believe anything at all. Example: the supreme being that created you and the whole world just absolutely hates the idea of two people of the same gender being together, much as he thought of inter-racial marriage only a few decades ago. It compromises the people who are subjected to it by breaking down their natural ability to rationalize and replace with the ability to righteously justify.
        • darkcthulhu, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1Sure, right, ok. What did the invisible man tell you to do today? Did he tell you to go on DIGG? Are you going to his house on Sunday to speak directly to him? If so, tell him I said hello.
      • Zyphron, on 02/14/2008, -0/+2OK...lets start with comments about Jesus. I am going to go under the assumption that you acknowledge there was a historical figure named Jesus, who grew up in Nazareth, and later was executed. If you don't acknowledge that you are not following reason, and you might as well stop reading now, because my arguments really only work with rational people.
        Next, lets focus on Jesus' resurrection, because really if that is true things like healing and whatnot do not seem all that far fetched.
        (The following comes primarily from a book written by former atheist and legal journalist Lee Strobel entitled "The case for Christ.") SO, the question is Jesus resurrection comes down to a few basic questions. Were the eye witness accounts reliable? (By eye-witness I mean the gospels) Is what we read today the same thing that was written then? And Finally, did Jesus really die? Was a body ever found?
        Now, there are certainly more questions, but if we can determine the answers to just those four, then it actually fairly reasonable to believe in the whole resurrection thing.
        Lets start with the first question: Were the eye witness accounts reliable? Well, the people themselves, we have a Tax Collector (Matthew), Mark (who was a companion of Peter – one of Jesus’ inner circle), A Doctor (Luke, who was also a companion of Paul), and finally the fisherman John, who was also part of Jesus’ inner circle. So, the gospel writers were close enough to Jesus to be ABLE to write a decent account of his life. Would they have? The claim is often made that they would have made up the details of his death in order to create a religion for themselves. Well, that is problematic for several reasons. The first of which is that none of the gospel writers or early disciples really benefited from the religion that they started. It was not until 313 AD (200 years after the death of John) that Christianity was legalized under the Roman government. Up until then, Christians received no small amount of pain and torture including stoning, burning, crucifixion, and upside down crucifixion. The leaders of the early church were no exception to this rule, and thus would not stand to GAIN at all from starting this religion. However, none of them denounced it as a lie that they started when being tortured to death, making the “they made it up.” Argument seem a little silly.
        Next, were the accounts accurately transmitted through time. Well, for that we need to apply a little bit of historical document evidence. Generally, the two concerns are when the account was originally written down, and how many manuscripts copies we have to translate from and determine the context of the original manuscripts. The copies are easy for the gospel accounts. We have around 5000 copies of the gospel accounts. This is actually the most copies of any ancient manuscript, comparing pretty well to number 2, which would be The Odyssey at about 800 manuscript patches. Also, in terms of time, it also works out pretty well. Accounts such as The Odyssey, or accounts of Julius Caesar are often not written down for hundreds of years after the person has already lived and died. The problem with this is that allows time for myth and mistakes to creep into the account. Christ died around approximately 34 to 36 AD. We know that John’s gospel account was written down before the fall of the Jewish temple in 71 AD. John’s gospel was actually the last to be written, Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts were both written before his, and Marks account was written first. (Mark was used as a source for Matthew and Luke). The time period between James and Matthew/Luke and Mark would have been at least a year, putting Mark at 69 AD and probably even earlier. This means that other people, who had been alive during Jesus’ life and death would have had the opportunity to contradict various reports the disciples were making.
        Next, did Jesus really die? This one is pretty easy. You had a bunch of Roman soldiers paid (and often threatened with penalty of death) to make sure. You had a spear through the guys side, and a Roman soldier announcing the death. Yeah, I am pretty sure he was dead. These guys did not make mistakes.
        Finally, where is the body. Now, the story often goes (this was the story at the time) that the disciples stole the body. This is fairly unrealistic because of the Roman guard that was placed on the body, the large heavy stone that was blocking the tomb, and the entire empire that was trying to find the body after it disappeared. Not to mention the 500 witnesses (referenced by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-6) that witnessed the resurrection, and would have still been around at the time of the early church to valididate or invalidate the claims. Actually this Corinthians creed is dated by many scholars to within 5 years of Jesus death, which is extraordinary from a historical perspective.
        So anyway, all that in a nutshell are historical truths that you have to deal with when you flippantly make the claim that it is silly to believe in a resurrection. Now, I will not claim that this is not foolproof, but at least have the intellectual honesty and integrity of dealing with what is out there rather than just ignoring it and claiming superiority.
        • darkcthulhu, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1Indeed, it is QUITE silly to believe in the magic of jesus or fairies or David Fricking Copperfield. Oh well, continue believing in the invisible man, I mean keep the blinders on.
        • Zyphron, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1Respond to a POINT. Give me an argument. Show me your wonderful logic instead of your baseless insults.
          Ad hominem attacks (attacks against a person as opposed to a point) are not logical proofs of anything, and in fact are great examples of a classic logical fallacy. They do not prove points, they do not help your case. I urge you to TRY thinking logically and openly, and I will happily do the same.
      • darkcthulhu, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1AMEN! er, I mean...
    • node3, on 02/14/2008, -0/+2That assumes the only type of force is physical. Peer pressure, ignorance, and moralizing are all forces, and are often far more effective of manipulating people than any physical force ever could.
    • fishbert, on 02/14/2008, -1/+3No, it's not about using force.

      Right now, I'm imagining a world without door-to-door Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses, Focus on the Family, creationism in the classroom, Terry Schaivo debate hamstringing our Congress, and money-hungry Scientologist leaders pushing suckers they've wrung dry toward suicide.
    • MusicalGenius, on 02/14/2008, -4/+1No one is FORCING anything. It is impossible to force you to b