Richard Dawkins goes to the Bible Belt

40

I had been trying to persuade bestselling author Richard Dawkins to give a talk in my hometown of Charleston, South Carolina for a long time, so I was thrilled when he agreed to speak at the College of Charleston on March 9. But instead of giving a typical lecture, he suggested a format I liked even more: having an amicable conversation with him over a glass of wine on stage.
Local organizations sponsoring the event included the College of Charleston Departments of Biology, Philosophy, and Religious Studies; the Secular Students of Charleston; and the Secular Humanists of the Lowcountry. Anticipating a big audience, I reserved the College’s largest auditorium, which seats 500.

Local reporters were eager to interview Dr. Dawkins by phone and to write about him before he arrived. However, I was once again struck by how frequently articles about atheists include comments from ministers, as this nice piece about Dawkins reveals. I hasten to say I’m pleased that positive voices on atheism are finally getting coverage, even if they are invariably countered by opposing voices. I wonder how long it will be until articles about religious leaders include any comments by atheists.

As local and regional enthusiasm grew about Dawkins’ appearance, we began to worry that the auditorium might not suffice, so we reserved two overflow rooms with a capacity of 100 each. Fortunately, the event could be streamed to those rooms.

As it turned out, we had vastly underestimated the public’s interest in Dawkins. The event was to begin at 7 p.m., but by 5:30 the auditorium was filled, and by 6:00 both rooms had overflowed. We then opened a third room, with the same result, leaving many sitting or standing in the aisles. Finally, we even allowed people to sit on the stage floor, just a few feet away from where Dr. Dawkins and I would be conversing. Although we managed to accommodate about 1200, at least a couple hundred had to be turned away. Fortunately, the event was videoed, and it should be on YouTube in a few weeks. Check the Richard Dawkins Foundation website for details.

After an introduction by Sean Faircloth, Director of Policy and Strategy at the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, Richard and I walked onto the stage to a standing ovation. When the applause finally died down, I thanked the audience for applauding me, indicating that I understood for whom the applause was really intended.

This reminded me of the time I was working on a Habitat for Humanity project in Atlanta with Jimmy Carter and about 100 others. We usually had dinner together at nearby black churches. One day, I happened to walk in with Jimmy Carter, and all the church members stood and applauded enthusiastically. I whispered to Jimmy, “I hope you don’t mind. This happens to me wherever I go.”

Written By: Herb Silverman
continue to source article at washingtonpost.com

40 COMMENTS

    • I would have felt deeply honoured to share a drink or a smoke or any sort of drug with any one of them. Sadly, I will never meet Christopher Hitchens, but I would still love to smoke a joint with Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris.

    • In reply to #1 by CentralFire:

      Science + TV + Alcohol = Pathetic.
      Please, don’t do another Four Horsemen!

      What you’re essentially saying is Discussion + Alcohol = Pathetic.

      It is widely accepted that alcohol frees the mind and loosens the tongue. I won’t say I was encouraged to drink during lectures, but I certainly wasn’t discouraged! And if you read Hitch 22 you’ll find that the practise is widespread in academia.

    • Science + TV + alcohol = Friday night at Crooky’s house!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      I am moved to the point of wildly jabbering on and gesticulating about the news of a huge turn out and the heartfelt support that Richard enjoyed in South Carolina!!!!! Mississippi next? Then (dare I say it?) TEXAS.
      In reply to #1 by CentralFire:

      Science + TV + Alcohol = Pathetic.
      Please, don’t do another Four Horsemen!

    • In reply to #1 by CentralFire:

      Science + TV + Alcohol = Pathetic.
      Please, don’t do another Four Horsemen!

      Televised science, reasoning and fine wines ! – Makes a change from asserted faith in ignorance and fine whines!

  1. It is pleasing to hear that Richard got such an enthusiastic reception even in the bowels of Christian America. Of course, a charismatic preacher would get an even bigger and more enthusiastic reception, but we knew that already. The important thing is that Richard brought so many non-believers together and encouraged them to be more visible. Visibility is all, to stop the religious from nattering on about America being a Christian nation and, worse, influencing politicians and policy-making.

  2. Good deal!! Charleston’s newspaper reported that the event was a big success. Skoal!

    …atheists are also ordinary, decent, law abiding, tax paying people

    Kansas City Atheist Coalition was denied permission to be in the big parade tomorrow (17th) – in lieu, they’ll set up an “ask an atheist” booth. I’m not Irish, but I wish them luck!

  3. Would like to have been there. I am within the bible belt but quite a ways from South Carolina. I just purchased a shirt and a hoody from the RD store. I have always been vocal about my atheism. Now I am going to be more visual :)
    Most people in my neck of the woods don’t even know what an atheist is or even heard of one. Anyway, looking forward to the video of the talk.

  4. While in Charleston,SC, Mr Dawkins made a statement that animals do not have a soul and he uses the bible as evidence because, he says, it does not mention it in specifics that animals have a spirit. I find this is not true because Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 It briefly says”that both man and beast dies, and they both have a spirit. The Bible states that mankind really has no preeminence over animals, therefore what happens to one happens to the other in a general.The difference being that man must give an account to God for his or her life, while the animals don’t . Would not this contradict Mr. Dawkins statement on animals and man the fairness of it.

    • In reply to #12 by gethersw1:

      While in Charleston,SC, Mr Dawkins made a statement that animals do not have a soul and he uses the bible as evidence because, he says, it does not mention it in specifics that animals have a spirit. I find this is not true because Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 It briefly says”that both man and beast dies, and they both have a spirit. The Bible states that mankind really has no preeminence over animals, therefore what happens to one happens to the other in a general.The difference being that man must give an account to God for his or her life, while the animals don’t . Would not this contradict Mr. Dawkins statement on animals and man the fairness of it.

      In theology there is a difference between “spirit” and “soul”.

      Best

        • In reply to #14 by Alan4discussion:

          In reply to #13 by Paris Price:

          In theology there is a difference between “spirit” and “soul”.

          In science they are both assorted versions of fiction!

          One could say that about the “soul” but the “spirit” of your argument is very good. ; )

          Best

        • In reply to #14 by Alan4discussion:

          In science they are both assorted versions of fiction!

          Actually, they can be separated by high-performance liquid chromatography on a column of crushed communion wafers and communion wine as the solvent. IIRC, the soul has a slightly greater retention time than the spirit and elutes last. The problem is catching them at the end. You need a clergyman for that.

          ;-)

          Steve

          • In reply to #18 by Agrajag:

            In reply to #14 by Alan4discussion:

            In science they are both assorted versions of fiction!

            Actually, they can be separated by high-performance liquid chromatography on a column of crushed communion wafers and communion wine as the solvent. IIRC, the soul has a slightly greater retention time than the spirit and elutes last. The problem is catching them at the end. You need a clergyman for that.

            I thought you could use a lighted candle if the spirit was strong enough for proof!

      • In reply to #13 by Paris Price: There is a train of thought that man has three parts body,soul and spirit this refer to as trichotomy and their is another train of thought upon which man is body and spirit which is called dichotomy (two parts) . So since all souls belong to God then it is the spirit of man that dictates the life he or she lives because it is the spirit of the man or woman that would know the things of that man or woman.Therefore spirit of man or the woman would give an account to God. So Paris in your statement concerning theology am I wrong to say that you have study theology. Just curious?reply to #12 by gethersw1:While in Charleston,SC, Mr Dawkins made a statement that animals do not have a soul and he uses the bible as evidence because, he says, it does not mention it in specifics that animals have a spirit. I find this is not true because Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 It briefly says”that both man and beast dies, and they both have a spirit. The Bible states that mankind really has no preeminence over animals, therefore what happens to one happens to the other in a general.The difference being that man must give an account to God for his or her life, while the animals don’t . Would not this contradict Mr. Dawkins statement on animals and man the fairness of it.In theology there is a difference between “spirit” and “soul”.Best

        • In reply to #20 by gethersw1:

          There is a train of thought that man has three parts body,soul and spirit this refer to as trichotomy and their is another train of thought upon which man is body and spirit which is called dichotomy (two parts) .

          There are many trains of thought in humans, but they all come from one part – the brain – even though the brain has many parts.

          So since all souls belong to God then it is the spirit of man that dictates the life he or she lives because it is the spirit of the man or woman that would know the things of that man or woman.

          The problem with this idea, is that not only do souls and spirits not exist except as part of brains, but the laws of physics can detect any energies coming into or out of a body or brain, and no such energies have ever been found, so there can be no “souls” leaving bodies.
          Spirituality does exist as feelings in the brain, and some people allow these feelings to dominate their thinking. They call these feelings “gods” and create elaborate externalised but vague descriptions – often copied from other people, or indoctrinated into them in childhood.

          “We have found a neuropsychological basis for spirituality, but it’s not isolated to one specific area of the brain,” said Brick Johnstone, professor of health psychology in the School of Health Professions.

          “Spirituality is a much more dynamic concept that uses many parts of the brain. Certain parts of the brain play more predominant roles, but they all work together to facilitate individuals’ spiritual experiences.”

          Although Johnstone studied people with brain injury, previous studies of Buddhist meditators and Franciscan nuns with normal brain function have shown that people can learn to minimize the functioning of the right side of their brains to increase their spiritual connections during meditation and prayer.

          In addition, Johnstone measured the frequency of participants’ religious practices, such as how often they attended church or listened to religious programs. He measured activity in the frontal lobe and found a correlation between increased activity in this part of the brain and increased participation in religious practices.
          http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120419091223.htm

          Therefore spirit of man or the woman would give an account to God.

          Indeed. The areas of the brain can be scanned showing areas of activity when spiritual feelings of god(s) are perceived or generated. However, with the death of the individual, as the brain decomposes, all brain activity, including areas producing spiritual feelings, ceases.

          So Paris in your statement concerning theology am I wrong to say that you have study theology.

          The studies of theology are as diverse as the thinking of various religions and various individuals. Such diversity and self-contradiction is possible where the fantasy thinking, is detached from the scientific evidenced basis of material reality.

          The difference being that man must give an account to God for his or her life, while the animals don’t .

          This notion of accounting to gods specific to man would be a false dichotomy as all life on Earth (bacteria,viruses, insects, fungi, plants, fish, amphibians reptiles mammals humans etc) are descended from LUCA, so there would be no fixed point at which humans became different in this gradual branching evolutionary transitional process.

          Would not this contradict Mr. Dawkins statement on animals and man the fairness of it.In theology there is a difference between “spirit” and “soul?

          There are all sorts of contradictions and imaginary details in biblical and theological accounts, – which are pointed out by Richard Dawkins at various times.

      • Wallow in your knowledge.In reply to #13 by Paris Price:

        In reply to #12 by gethersw1:

        While in Charleston,SC, Mr Dawkins made a statement that animals do not have a soul and he uses the bible as evidence because, he says, it does not mention it in specifics that animals have a spirit. I find this is not true because Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 It briefly says”that both man and beast dies, and they both have a spirit. The Bible states that mankind really has no preeminence over animals, therefore what happens to one happens to the other in a general.The difference being that man must give an account to God for his or her life, while the animals don’t . Would not this contradict Mr. Dawkins statement on animals and man the fairness of it.

        In theology there is a difference between “spirit” and “soul”.

        Best

      • I’m not so sure. Genesis 1:28: “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground”. What do you think? In reply to #13 by Paris Price:

        In reply to #12 by gethersw1:

        While in Charleston,SC, Mr Dawkins made a statement that animals do not have a soul and he uses the bible as evidence because, he says, it does not mention it in specifics that animals have a spirit. I find this is not true because Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 It briefly says”that both man and beast dies, and they both have a spirit. The Bible states that mankind really has no preeminence over animals, therefore what happens to one happens to the other in a general.The difference being that man must give an account to God for his or her life, while the animals don’t . Would not this contradict Mr. Dawkins statement on animals and man the fairness of it.

        In theology there is a difference between “spirit” and “soul”.

        Best

    • Eccesiastes 3:19-21 contradicts the ideas about the afterlife presented in the gospels. Forget about a semantic argument about “spirit” vs. “soul”…. What about the afterlife????

      In reply to #12 by gethersw1:

      While in Charleston,SC, Mr Dawkins made a statement that animals do not have a soul and he uses the bible as evidence because, he says, it does not mention it in specifics that animals have a spirit. I find this is not true because Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 It briefly says”that both man and beast dies, and they both have a spirit. The Bible states that mankind really has no preeminence over animals, therefore what happens to one happens to the other in a general.The difference being that man must give an account to God for his or her life, while the animals don’t . Would not this contradict Mr. Dawkins statement on animals and man the fairness of it.

    • In reply to #12 by gethersw1:

      The Bible states that mankind really has no preeminence over animals, therefore what happens to one happens to the other in a general (sic).The difference being that man must give an account to God for his or her life, while the animals don’t .

      Ecclesiastes suggests that “spirits” of men and animals go to different places:

      3:21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

      When, in the process of evolving to our present form, do you suppose we acquired the gene for “giving an account to god”? That’s a hell of a mutation! :lol:

      Steve

    • In reply to #12 by gethersw1:

      While in Charleston,SC, Mr Dawkins made a statement that animals do not have a soul and he uses the bible as evidence because, he says, it does not mention it in specifics that animals have a spirit. I find this is not true because Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 It briefly says”that both man and beast dies, and they both have a spirit. The Bible states that mankind really has no preeminence over animals, therefore what happens to one happens to the other in a general.The difference being that man must give an account to God for his or her life, while the animals don’t . Would not this contradict Mr. Dawkins statement on animals and man the fairness of it.

      And to Alan and to Paris Price:

      Last thing first: whether a soul and a spirit can be distinguished is entirely a matter of definition. I have endured quite a few theological courses and the answer cannot be found there.

      But I want to ramble on about spirituality. I have quizzed a lot of people about spritutality without any meanfingul result. If you are spiritual, does that mean that there is something else “out there?” Does it have objective reality? What does it want from you, and if nothing, how could it be relevant? Is it “the force,” that can be channelled? I am extremely reluctant to admit the existence of any such thing.

      And no, gethersw, animals do not have souls–and neither do you. Your feeling of having a soul is an artifact of consciousness–nothing more. So RD was correct in what he said (if he said that) but you have failed to understand it.

      And no one gives a crap about what the Bible says about it. There is no evidence to support the idea. Nor is there any evidence that I will be called upon to give an accounting to your god. But if invited, I will cordially decline.

      • In reply to #26 by JHJEFFERY: I sure hope you do decline Mr.Jeffery.

        In reply to #12 by gethersw1:While in Charleston,SC, Mr Dawkins made a statement that animals do not have a soul and he uses the bible as evidence because, he says, it does not mention it in specifics that animals have a spirit. I find this is not true because Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 It briefly says”that both man and beast dies, and they both have a spirit. The Bible states that mankind really has no preeminence over animals, therefore what happens to one happens to the other in a general.The difference being that man must give an account to God for his or her life, while the animals don’t . Would not this contradict Mr. Dawkins statement on animals and man the fairness of it.And to Alan and to Paris Price:Last thing first: whether a soul and a spirit can be distinguished is entirely a matter of definition. I have endured quite a few theological courses and the answer cannot be found there.But I want to ramble on about spirituality. I have quizzed a lot of people about spritutality without any meanfingul result. If you are spiritual, does that mean that there is something else “out there?” Does it have objective reality? What does it want from you, and if nothing, how could it be relevant? Is it “the force,” that can be channelled? I am extremely reluctant to admit the existence of any such thing.And no, gethersw, animals do not have souls–and neither do you. Your feeling of having a soul is an artifact of consciousness–nothing more. So RD was correct in what he said (if he said that) but you have failed to understand it.And no one gives a crap about what the Bible says about it. There is no evidence to support the idea. Nor is there any evidence that I will be called upon to give an accounting to your god. But if invited, I will cordially decline.

        • In reply to #27 by gethersw1:

          In reply to #26 by JHJEFFERY: I sure hope you do decline Mr.Jeffery.

          In reply to #12 by gethersw1:While in Charleston,SC, Mr Dawkins made a statement that animals do not have a soul and he uses the bible as evidence because, he says, it does not mention it in specifics that animals have a spirit. I find this is not true because Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 It briefly says”that both man and beast dies, and they both have a spirit. The Bible states that mankind really has no preeminence over animals, therefore what happens to one happens to the other in a general.The difference being that man must give an account to God for his or her life, while the animals don’t . Would not this contradict Mr. Dawkins statement on animals and man the fairness of it.And to Alan and to Paris Price:Last thing first: whether a soul and a spirit can be distinguished is entirely a matter of definition. I have endured quite a few theological courses and the answer cannot be found there.But I want to ramble on about spirituality. I have quizzed a lot of people about spritutality without any meanfingul result. If you are spiritual, does that mean that there is something else “out there?” Does it have objective reality? What does it want from you, and if nothing, how could it be relevant? Is it “the force,” that can be channelled? I am extremely reluctant to admit the existence of any such thing.And no, gethersw, animals do not have souls–and neither do you. Your feeling of having a soul is an artifact of consciousness–nothing more. So RD was correct in what he said (if he said that) but you have failed to understand it.And no one gives a crap about what the Bible says about it. There is no evidence to support the idea. Nor is there any evidence that I will be called upon to give an accounting to your god. But if invited, I will cordially decline.

          In reply to #27 by gethersw1:

          In reply to #26 by JHJEFFERY: I sure hope you do decline Mr.Jeffery.

          In reply to #12 by gethersw1:While in Charleston,SC, Mr Dawkins made a statement that animals do not have a soul and he uses the bible as evidence because, he says, it does not mention it in specifics that animals have a spirit. I find this is not true because Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 It briefly says”that both man and beast dies, and they both have a spirit. The Bible states that mankind really has no preeminence over animals, therefore what happens to one happens to the other in a general.The difference being that man must give an account to God for his or her life, while the animals don’t . Would not this contradict Mr. Dawkins statement on animals and man the fairness of it.And to Alan and to Paris Price:Last thing first: whether a soul and a spirit can be distinguished is entirely a matter of definition. I have endured quite a few theological courses and the answer cannot be found there.But I want to ramble on about spirituality. I have quizzed a lot of people about spritutality without any meanfingul result. If you are spiritual, does that mean that there is something else “out there?” Does it have objective reality? What does it want from you, and if nothing, how could it be relevant? Is it “the force,” that can be channelled? I am extremely reluctant to admit the existence of any such thing.And no, gethersw, animals do not have souls–and neither do you. Your feeling of having a soul is an artifact of consciousness–nothing more. So RD was correct in what he said (if he said that) but you have failed to understand it.And no one gives a crap about what the Bible says about it. There is no evidence to support the idea. Nor is there any evidence that I will be called upon to give an accounting to your god. But if invited, I will cordially decline.

          How very Christian of you.

          JHJ

        • In reply to #27 by gethersw1:

          Nor is there any evidence that I will be called upon to give an accounting to your god. But if invited, I will cordially decline.

          In reply to #26 by JHJEFFERY: I sure hope you do decline Mr.Jeffery.

          Who knows? But the odds are heavily stacked against believers being right!

      • In reply to #26 by JHJEFFERY:

        Nor is there any evidence that I will be called upon to give an accounting to your god. But if invited, I will cordially decline.

        NOOOOOooooooooes! You cannot refuse!! Awlamattah Ghawd will raise his massive, all-powerful hammer and thump you on your unworthy head. Then you’ll spill the beans, oh yess, Precious.

        Steve

        • In reply to #30 by Agrajag:

          In reply to #26 by JHJEFFERY:

          Nor is there any evidence that I will be called upon to give an accounting to your god. But if invited, I will cordially decline.

          NOOOOOooooooooes! You cannot refuse!! Awlamattah Ghawd will raise his massive, all-powerful hammer and thump you on your unworthy head. Then you’ll spill the beans, oh yess, Precious.

          Steve

          Well, crap.

  5. That gobbledegook should have read: Nor is there any evidence that I will be called upon to give an accounting to your god. But if invited, I will cordially decline.

    by gethersw1:
    In reply to #26 by JHJEFFERY: “I sure hope you do decline Mr.Jeffery.

    How very Christian of you.

    Hypocrisy runs deep in the religious.

    • In reply to #32 by JHJEFFERY:

      That gobbledegook should have read: Nor is there any evidence that I will be called upon to give an accounting to your god. But if invited, I will cordially decline.by gethersw1: In reply to #26 by JHJEFFERY: “I sure hope you do decline Mr.Jeffery.How very Christian of you.Hypocrisy runs deep in the religious. Sorry about that JHJeffery,
      I just couldn’t resist that one but doesn’t hypocrisy runs deep in folk who say that they are atheist. Since many who say they are atheist get angry when they are questioned about their atheism. It seems to me if I am an atheist why would i get angry if someone question my atheistic belief. If I don’t Believe, I just don’t believe, unless I have doubt that my atheistic may not be true and their is some inconsistencies in it.

      • In reply to #33 by gethersw1:

        Sorry about that JHJeffery,
        I just couldn’t resist that one but doesn’t hypocrisy runs deep in folk who say that they are atheist. Since many who say they are atheist get angry when they are questioned about their atheism.

        Really? Are you sure this is not just some preachers’ myths about “angry atheists”, you are repeating. There are numerous discussions on this site where JHJeffery has very patiently and calmly answered and explained questions raise by theists.

        It seems to me if I am an atheist why would i get angry if someone question my atheistic belief.

        Atheism is not a “belief”. It is an absence of belief in gods.

        Scientists get angry about people posturing as fake scientists or historians , and about people lying about science and history to pervert education, while atheists can be irritated by preachers lying about them and denigrating their characters. (Along the lines of “Anyone who is not a “Troooo believer” in my religion is evil” – People from rival religions also find this irritating.)

        If I don’t Believe, I just don’t believe, unless I have doubt that my atheistic may not be true and their is some inconsistencies in it.

        I can’t really see any inconsistencies in not following gods. It’s like finding inconsistencies in being a non-stamp-collector, or a non-football supporter! You just get on with your life without these pursuits.

        BTW: Double line spaces after quotes, separates them and makes posts clearer – Check it in the “Preview box” below the comment.

        Also: Did you check the link @29 as something to reflect on?

      • In reply to #33 by gethersw1:

        In reply to #32 by JHJEFFERY:

        That gobbledegook should have read: Nor is there any evidence that I will be called upon to give an accounting to your god. But if invited, I will cordially decline.by gethersw1: In reply to #26 by JHJEFFERY: “I sure hope you do decline Mr.Jeffery.How very Christian of you.Hypocrisy runs deep in the religious. Sorry about that JHJeffery,
        I just couldn’t resist that one but doesn’t hypocrisy runs deep in folk who say that they are atheist. Since many who say they are atheist get angry when they are questioned about their atheism. It seems to me if I am an atheist why would i get angry if someone question my atheistic belief. If I don’t Believe, I just don’t believe, unless I have doubt that my atheistic may not be true and their is some inconsistencies in it.

        Angry? I am not angry with you.I don’t recall ever seeing an atheist on this site angry with a believer for questioning beliefs. That’s what this forum is for. Sympathy would be closer to what we feel for you. I wish you nothing but a good, honest life. Only the religious want the non-religious and those of other religions to be judged and burn in hell fire. And that’s why I know you “couldn’t resist.” Now you need to examine yourself to find out WHY you couldn’t resist.

        BTW, defending your hypocrisy by alleging that “everyone does it.” even though false in this case, is not a valid argument. So Know Thyself. Try to figure out why your first response to my post was filled with hate and ill will.

        • In reply to #35 by JHJEFFERY:

          In reply to #33 by gethersw1:In reply to #32 by JHJEFFERY:That gobbledegook should have read: Nor is there any evidence that I will be called upon to give an accounting to your god. But if invited, I will cordially decline.by gethersw1: In reply to #26 by JHJEFFERY: “I sure hope you do decline Mr.Jeffery.How very Christian of you.Hypocrisy runs deep in the religious. Sorry about that JHJeffery, I just couldn’t resist that one but doesn’t hypocrisy runs deep in folk who say that they are atheist. Since many who say they are atheist get angry when they are questioned about their atheism. It seems to me if I am an atheist why would i get angry if someone question my atheistic belief. If I don’t Believe, I just don’t believe, unless I have doubt that my atheistic may not be true and their is some inconsistencies in it.Angry? I am not angry with you.I don’t recall ever seeing an atheist on this site angry with a believer for questioning beliefs. That’s what this forum is for. Sympathy would be closer to what we feel for you. I wish you nothing but a good, honest life. Only the religious want the non-religious and those of other religions to be judged and burn in hell fire. And that’s why I know you “couldn’t resist.” Now you need to examine yourself to find out WHY you couldn’t resist.BTW, defending your hypocrisy by alleging that “everyone does it.” even though false in this case, is not a valid argument. So Know Thyself. Try to figure out why your first response to my post was filled with hate and ill will. To Jeffery
          Thanks for correction on the grammer errors I made, but I wasn’t angry at all. I was having fun but by the way you are alleging my post was fill with hate and ill. It wasn’t because I am not hater but your reply and the others just strenghten my faith even the more in my Lord. So thanks for exercise and take care. I will be back. Thanks again!

          • In reply to #36 by gethersw1:

            Thanks for correction on the grammer errors I made, but I wasn’t angry at all. I was having fun but by the way you are alleging my post was fill with hate and ill. It wasn’t because I am not hater but your reply and the others just strenghten my faith even the more in my Lord.

            The rational comments addressing the issues raised, seem to have sailed right on by!

            (Even the ones about formatting posts!)

          • In reply to #37 by Alan4discussion:

            The rational comments addressing the issues raised, seem to have sailed right on by!(Even the ones about formatting posts!)

            And the Spelling Demons are at work here! (“grammer”, “strenghten”)

            Luckily, you have succeeded in boosting his faith, so it’s not a total loss. <_<

            Steve

  6. gethersw1 36

    I did not correct your grammar. I had no objection to it.

    I did take offense to your comment that you hoped I would land in hell. This is the typical judgmental Christian response, sanctioned by Revelation. All you people want to do is believe that YOU, and only you are graced to go to heaven. This is an attitude I find revolting. And yes, it was filled with hate. There was no humor intended, and your attempt to sugar coat it lies foul.

  7. I am going to hell. That should be enough for you. You should not sit in judgement; for your book tells you not to. You are a joke because you say that god is omnipotent and then assume that he wont know that you are a douche bag because you fold your hands when the table prays “grace”. You are a victim of your own belief system: a JOKE.

    Here is the punch line. you go to hell with all the “sinners” because you disobey the book more than they do… keep hating… we will see where you end up….

    Just kidding, you are just another asshole in the endless parade of assholes… welcome to the show. Abide by Leviticus and then speak to me about Biblical fidelity.

Leave a Reply