51. Another critic who hasn't read the book

Comment #110489 by Fedler on January 11, 2008 at 10:37 am

Cheers!, Ms. Condon. I trust your dog - or any other pet - is still well :-). Good to have you aboard.

52. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107331 by Fedler on January 4, 2008 at 11:58 am

Good idea, quill.

I really ought to get some work done today, myself...

53. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107328 by Fedler on January 4, 2008 at 11:55 am

Thank you for that, Rtambree :-)

54. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107320 by Fedler on January 4, 2008 at 11:47 am

al-rawandi,

ANY country's leader would have to 'consider' all possible measures in dealing with rogue nations (however you define that). ANY candidate would have to decide how long they could listen to:

Leader of X country: "Don't do that."
Bad country's leader: "Piss on you."

Leader of X country: "Don't do that."
Bad country's leader: "Piss on you."

Leader of X country: "Don't do that."
Bad country's leader: "Piss on you."

Leader of X country: "Don't do that."
Bad country's leader: "Piss on you."

Leader of X country: "Don't do that."
Bad country's leader: "Piss on you."

Leader of X country: "Don't do that."
Bad country's leader: "Piss on you."

Leader of X country: "Don't do that."
Bad country's leader: "Piss on you."

Leader of X country: "Don't do that."
Bad country's leader: "Piss on you."

...before actually growing some balls and taking action bilaterally with other nations, military action if need be. Singling out Obama for 'considering' it, when ANY candidate would have to, seems disingenuous.

55. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107277 by Fedler on January 4, 2008 at 10:55 am

One last one....

gameguy, Obama got 9 delegates out of 19 in our district. The remaining 10 were divided between Clinton and Edwards.

56. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107263 by Fedler on January 4, 2008 at 10:39 am

al-rawandi,

I don't see how "Obama stated that as President he would consider military action in Pakistan in order to attack al-Qaeda..." translates into your summary of "He is advocating military strikes against Pakistan and potentially its citizens".

The quote says 'al-Qaeda' right there in print. I admit there is likely to be collateral damage, but that is not the goal.

In all fairness, I can see how you can come away with that impression, though.

Either way, I must take leave and go back to work. Lunch is over for me :-)...

57. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107260 by Fedler on January 4, 2008 at 10:34 am

Welcome gameguy!

I cacused for Obama last night and that was one of my reasons why I voted for him, also.

58. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107240 by Fedler on January 4, 2008 at 10:00 am

Re: Obama's experience/inexperience. His inexperience is what makes me want to vote for him. Getting some fresh blood in the Oval Office seems like a welcome change. Just my 2 cents....

59. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107237 by Fedler on January 4, 2008 at 9:57 am

Touche, annabanana :-)

60. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107233 by Fedler on January 4, 2008 at 9:54 am

al-rawandi, see #128 by quill. Obama wasn't talking about invasions. I agree that invasion as a solution to an invasion is ridiculous.

I also see Obama truly exhausting all possible alternatives before resorting to strikes.

61. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107226 by Fedler on January 4, 2008 at 9:47 am

From Wikipedia:

Obama stated that as President he would consider military action in Pakistan in order to attack al-Qaeda, even if the Pakistani government did not give approval.[19] Obama said, "I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America."[20] He also said "As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations."

It only states he would consider it, not do it. Everybody would 'consider it'.

62. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #106988 by Fedler on January 3, 2008 at 7:45 pm

Ah, Ralph Nader. That's why I didn't remember him...

63. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #106982 by Fedler on January 3, 2008 at 7:31 pm

Rtambree,

Who were the non-theist candidates? I can't remember them off hand.

As Radesq noted, the election is not entirely about religiosity.

64. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #106973 by Fedler on January 3, 2008 at 7:16 pm

Many of the American atheists on this site have admitted to voting for Godbotherers.

In all fairness, all we have to vote for are Godbotherers. The only other option is not to vote, but then we would be yelled at for that, too.

Personally, I chose Obama tonight partially because of his desire to transform religious concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values during public debate. He seems the most atheistic candidate out there in this regard.

65. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #106964 by Fedler on January 3, 2008 at 6:49 pm

Hi everyone,

I just came back from my local caucus and Obama won in my town on the Democratic side, and the state seems to be reflecting the same so far. It appears Clinton and Edwards are in a battle for second place statewide.

I don't know about the Republican side in my town, but Huckabee does seem to be in the lead over Romney so far statewide.

Not all precincts have reported results though.

66. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #106842 by Fedler on January 3, 2008 at 2:57 pm

As an Iowan who will be at the caucus tonight (my first one), I can at least assure everyone here I won't be voting for Huckabee.

67. Borders Tags Atheist Book with 'O Come All Ye Faithless' Cards

Comment #100216 by Fedler on December 18, 2007 at 11:44 am

Christians have always been used to being punch bags but I would have hoped that, in a society in which we are seeking to show respect to all people and beliefs, we might have grown out of this kind of nonsense.

This kind of quote always irritates me. "Oh, we poor Christians are used to being punching bags, but can't we all just get along?" Christians have done more to suppress non-belief than anyone else. Since when have they ever really respected atheistic views? I think it must be hard-wired into Christian apologists to play the suppression card for themselves while downplaying their own involvement.

Until the fourth paragraph I thought the religious spokespersons were defending atheists who might take offense to the tags (like our non-belief is a joke). As far as the tags go, that was pretty stupid in my opinion. However, it gives TGD more publicity.

68. U.S. Congress Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith

Comment #98187 by Fedler on December 13, 2007 at 8:20 am

Well, crap. I just realized the leader of this resolution was Steve King from my state of Iowa (5th district). Even though I don't live in his district, he's about to get an earful....

69. Christopher Hitchens appears on the Hugh Hewitt Radio Show

Comment #98134 by Fedler on December 13, 2007 at 6:09 am

35bluejacket,

Thanks for the info! I remain intrigued and will hopefully start to pursue this more this weekend when I have more time. Thanks again!

70. Christopher Hitchens appears on the Hugh Hewitt Radio Show

Comment #97606 by Fedler on December 12, 2007 at 12:20 pm

35bluejacket,

In that light, would the theists be right in some sense in stating the nation was initially founded on Christian beliefs? Remember, this would be 300 years prior to Jefferson, et al writing the constitution - a more secularized constitution (thank goodness).

71. Christopher Hitchens appears on the Hugh Hewitt Radio Show

Comment #97590 by Fedler on December 12, 2007 at 12:01 pm

Sharrow,

Thanks for giving me something to read about. In addition to the Neal Stephenson reference, what were some of the 'boring' texts?

I admit being one of the Americans who assumed/were told that the Pilgrim Fathers came to America to escape religious persecution. It never occurred to me to question which way the persecution was flowing, though. I'm very intrigued to learn more.

72. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96649 by Fedler on December 10, 2007 at 7:41 pm

Sorry, this sentence stuck out for me...

It is weak human beings, not religion, per se, that kills in God's name.

And yet, can't he see that religion gives them the justification? By saying 'in God's name' he's all but admitting it. Without that justification, people would merely be 'weak human beings', not necessarily dangerous.

73. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #92310 by Fedler on November 30, 2007 at 9:05 am

A bit like the pot calling the kettle black, don't you think? Same old stuff.

Man, I despise the RC church.

74. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #91919 by Fedler on November 29, 2007 at 2:51 pm

This american obsession with prudery and Clintons penis!! Let it go.

Thought-provoking as always, Brian :-). But I think that's an important factor. The societal differences between Europe and North America have a great deal to do with the 'comfort level' of some posters on this, including myself.

I can see the Professor's point, but I'm just not altogether with him on this way of thinking yet. Maybe I will be later in life, but not today.

75. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #91876 by Fedler on November 29, 2007 at 1:43 pm

I'm torn. My brother recently separated from his wife (not yet divorced) because she started a relationship with another man. He didn't fly into a fit of rage or seek to make her life hell. He just wanted to know why. He has thus far been reluctant to file for the divorce.

I suggested to him that if she wants to screw around (literally), she needs to do so as a legitimate single, unmarried person and urged him to file for the divorce. She's making a mockery of their promise to be faithful to each other, it doesn't matter if it's anti-Darwinian.

So I can see the point of dgr8test97, but I can also understand there is no obvious natural reason to commit to one person. Especially no reason to totally run the person through the ringer via sexual jealousy.

Getting too far, perhaps, outside the box…what if the other person you want to love is a relative, like a cousin? There perhaps is no obvious reason to commit to one person, but how does that apply in an incestual relationship? Just a thought I figured I would throw out there…..

76. Pupil defends teacher in Muhammad teddy furore

Comment #91823 by Fedler on November 29, 2007 at 11:45 am

From CNN:

Boulos told CNN Wednesday that the complaint about Gibbons' actions came from a staff member at the school, not from a parent as originally thought.

Speaking outside the court, Boulos said a letter from Sudan's Ministry of Education claimed that parents had raised concerns over the naming of the bear. He said he did not know who was responsible, but was "horrified" when he found out it was a member of his own staff.

Defense counsel later confirmed that the complaint came from Sarah Khawad, a secretary at the school.

Betrayed by a colleague, no less!

77. This Friday: Debate between Dan Dennett and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #91511 by Fedler on November 28, 2007 at 1:27 pm

I agree with room101. D'Souza seems to specialize in spewing as much crap as possible at his opponent that it takes longer than the given 10 minutes to refute it all. Thus, the proponents of D'Souza can say "Look, Dennett didn't refute claim X, Y or Z. God exists!"

I have complete trust that Professor Dennett can squash D'Souza like a bug intellectually, but D'Souza's antics do play to the "general" audience. I wish Professor Dennett all the best.

78. Golden Compass author hits back

Comment #91462 by Fedler on November 28, 2007 at 11:22 am

Comment #91372 by annabanana.

I got a similar e-mail at my work here in Iowa. They certainly are getting riled up about it. I've never read the books, but I can guarantee I will now :-).

79. Mitt the Mormon

Comment #91171 by Fedler on November 27, 2007 at 1:03 pm

nogodsever,

As your comment adding nothing to the discussion in such a vulgar way, I have flagged your comment as offensive. Do try to be a little more intelligent and less flaming in the future.

80. Sunday School for Atheists

Comment #90711 by Fedler on November 26, 2007 at 7:31 am

I think this is a great idea! As an atheist married to a Catholic I've often wanted an outlet like this free of the religious overtones. My daughter currently attends "Bible School" at our local church on Thursday nights and I allow it for the social interactions (being an only child she doesn't get much peer interactions) and I've been wishing for some counterbalance like this.

Unfortunately, we are left with some of the trappings of the religious tones, such as calling it "Sunday School", but it doesn't have to be on Sunday. I agree with Barbara, the religites will call it a religion no matter what. That's their habit.

81. Malaysia firm's 'Muslim car' plan

Comment #87799 by Fedler on November 13, 2007 at 7:15 am

Philip,

Good point. I'm waiting for the clash between the bomb-laden Muslim car and the bullet-proof Pope-mobile. That's a demolition derby I want to see!

82. Malaysia firm's 'Muslim car' plan

Comment #87791 by Fedler on November 13, 2007 at 6:18 am

This, of course, sets a precedent. Let's have all the Roman Catholics get a car modeled after the Pope-mobile - a big block of bullet-proof glass surrounding the top and all the guilt you want at the push of a button. The spare altar boy in the trunk is yours to play with as you see fit.

83. God Hates the World

Comment #86167 by Fedler on November 8, 2007 at 1:40 pm

I would like to welcome you, also, Nate.

I realized this thread has wound down pretty much, but there is another thread which may benefit from your viewpoint:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1821,Jury-Awards-Father-11M-in-Funeral-Case,AP

Thanks, and welcome aboard!

84. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85634 by Fedler on November 6, 2007 at 2:35 pm

ADH:

When I was about 16, though I was brought up in an evangelical home, I was about to chuck it all in. The questions I was being asked left me without answers (typically they were the same quesions that I see coming out on this thread). But then a book by CS Lewis "fell into my hands", and then others followed suit. I realised that there were answers to these questions, which, even if they didn't convince all my "interrogators", did satisfy me intellectually. I have to say that my faith is real. God is for me the foundation of everything that is. Life seems to me to be absolutely meaningless outside of a relationship with Him.

But that is "my" journey (a brief sketch of it). Everyone's journey is different.

It's interesting to see differences in the paths that people get on. I read CS Lewis, also, and it turned me even further away from faith. Other books that followed suit for me were science books (Sagan, Greene, Hawking, etc.). It would be interesting to examine the circumstances that leads one person away from faith, yet can lead another person into faith. Or how two people with very similar information can draw two very different conclusions. I have no credentials to do so, but it would be interesting reading.

85. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85195 by Fedler on November 5, 2007 at 9:19 am

Calvin/David,

I can agree with you about one thing. I do find the flea concept done to death and to be quite boring now.

The rest of your post can be dismissed as the same old stuff.

How is it in Scotland? It's turning cold here in the Midwest of the U.S.

Scott

86. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #82419 by Fedler on October 26, 2007 at 9:28 am

Morality, or more specifically, humanity's sense of justice, fairness and negotiation, pre-date religion by thousands of years. While this innate sense is in us at birth, the parameters of these senses (to what degree an act is fair/unfair, moral/immoral) are a matter of culture and societal norms. It's been proven that certain areas of the brain are activated during moral decision-making, but those same areas are not specific to moral decision-making. They are used for many other functions. So the functions of our brain have adapted over time to make moral decisions and no supreme being is required or even indicated.

I recommend reading more about Marc Hauser's research for specifics. Moral Minds by Marc Hauser.

87. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79676 by Fedler on October 18, 2007 at 6:18 am

bluejway:

Theists can learn a great deal from you, (and I have learned much from Hitchens book), but you already know it all, so you don't need to learn from us. That bites.

On the contrary, atheists can learn a great deal from theists alike. Feel free to share anytime and we can have a good solid exchange of knowledge (preferably with less attitude than you initial post).

88. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77072 by Fedler on October 8, 2007 at 11:21 am

....Or (for me) when people say the United States was formed based on 'Christian principles' such as fairness, helping others, and 'love thy neighbor' (as if all other religions or non-believers believe in unfairness, not helping others, and 'screw thy neighbor'?) or that the US is a 'Christian nation', or seeing billboards constantly in our area advertising religion or telling us all that we're going to burn in hell if we don't believe a certain way.

89. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #77064 by Fedler on October 8, 2007 at 10:47 am

However that is not quite what the story said – it appears as though he was teaching this – not expressing an opinion.

Wrong, David. From the article:

Bitterman said he called the story of Adam and Eve a "fairy tale" in a conversation with a student after the class and was told the students had threatened to see an attorney. He declined to identify any of the students in the class.

He wasn't teaching it in class, he expressed it as an opinion OUTSIDE of class in a conversation with a student.

Of course if someone claims a miracle, insofar as it is possible we will investigate it. What is your point?"

Are these reports made available to everyone? Where is there a copy of said reports from these investigations? I would like to read one if you have one available.

Anyway I am glad that you disagree with those on this site who think that creationists should be banned from being science teachers!

So long as they stick to teaching science and not creationism. If my daughter's science teacher believed in creationism, though, I can guarantee that I would keep a very close watch on what is taught.

90. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74578 by Fedler on September 29, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Corylus and steve99,

I would like to second your comments. Having lost two children previously in pregnancies, I also find his use of emotional exploitation to be utterly reprehensible.

91. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74574 by Fedler on September 29, 2007 at 3:15 pm

Somehow elephants in fridges seem somewhat trivial.

Indeed. And yet you've devoted your life to one.

92. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74570 by Fedler on September 29, 2007 at 3:00 pm

Fedlar. Why do you make this statement? It is nothing more than prejudice. You cannot possible know whether most people have examined their beliefs or not. Going by my own small experience (ie – ministering in a congregation for 21 years and being editor of my church's magazine) I would say that most Christians I know spend a great deal of time examining their beliefs. But I suspect it suits you to think that we are all a bunch of deluded non-thinkers and so, because it suits you, lo and behold it becomes 'fact'.

David, I find it interesting you chose the one section of my comment (the one section that I knew was a "throw away" part of the comment) to make a statement about, but totally ignore the rest where I actually posed questions to you. You could have easily ignored this section and went to the heart of the post, but no, you chose to focus in on the most meaningless part. Typical avoidance and redirection.

Anyway, here are my questions again:
Where are the church officials actively seeking to confirm their beliefs scientifically? If they 'investigate' alleged miracles, do they do anything else constructive?

Regarding your initial question:

Why are you all getting so upset because a teacher was allegedly disciplined for seeking to teach his religious views in a secular school? If it were the other way round – if the teacher had been disciplined for teaching a biblical view in a secular school would you not all be shouting from the rooftops what a good thing that was?

My understanding of the article was that the teacher was not disciplined for teaching his religious views. He was allegedly disciplined for saying that the 'Adam and Eve' story is not literal. The theist students/school administration found this offensive and managed to have him 'disciplined' for merely suggesting the story isn't literal.

From the article:

Steve Bitterman, 60, said officials at Southwestern Community College sided with a handful of students who threatened legal action over his remarks in a western civilization class Tuesday. He said he was fired Thursday.

Yes, this is offensive to atheists and other non-believers and should be offensive to anyone who seeks intellectual freedom and equality.

93. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74176 by Fedler on September 27, 2007 at 2:29 pm

Thanks for the quotes, NB!

"And the ad hominem examples you use of eccentric and unbalanced religious people are not what most Christians would identify with."

I would agree with this to an extent. It's easy to handpick the nutjobs and put them up as the poster child. However, they're the most easily identifiable. Which brings up the question, what do most passive Christians believe in? One look at the zombie hordes of people going to church on Sundays out of habit makes me think: Have they ever really examined what they believe? Most have not. They just continue to go as a leftover duty to their family who dragged them to church as a youngster, or who go now as adults with children because they feel going to church will help "bring them up right" without explaining or exploring whether they believe. It's a passive charade that the church (of any denomination) is only too eager to prolong so long as people keep putting money into the collection plate. Where are the church officials actively seeking to confirm their beliefs scientifically? If they 'investigate' alleged miracles, do they do anything else constructive?

94. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71312 by Fedler on September 18, 2007 at 11:54 am

Re: Comment #71309 by Galactor

I see Ray "Banana Boy" Comfort in his reading list. That's enough for me.

95. The Nonbelievers

Comment #71311 by Fedler on September 18, 2007 at 11:48 am

I agree with Rachel. The most meaningful moments of the religious funerals I've been to have been the moments when everyone puts their holy hymnals away, puts away their missalettes, don't ramble about some pathetic prayer that lacks meaning, and actually talks about the deceased person. I would like my funeral to relate to me, not some outdated fables allegedly from two thousand years ago. If others have a problem with that, than they can choose not to attend (they probably are not my closest friends, anyway).

96. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71275 by Fedler on September 18, 2007 at 9:20 am

I don't go to very many people who have lived in the last 200 years though, because the interpretations have become more and more corrupted.

Is it only in the last 200 years that interpretations have become corrupted? Even assuming the bible can be believed, the canon of the bible was formalized around 400 A.D. (the exact year escapes me). From 400 A.D. to 1800 A.D. (1400 years) can you say the alleged message wasn't corrupted?

Only in Christianity will you find God reaching down to man, offering him grace and forgiveness, and adopting him as a son.

…so long as you prostrate yourself before him, make sacrifices to him, praise him constantly to stroke his ego, and forgo any sense of free inquiry.

However, my primary goal is to give glory to God, even among those who do not believe in Him. Perhaps God will show mercy to you and use these words to bring life into you.

The "religious experience" is actually pretty easy to stimulate. I get the same experience when I ponder nature and the cosmos at the top of a mountain. Of course, you will say god is the nature and cosmos, to which I will respond that there is no proof of that. Tricky little deity, isn't he? To want us to worship him so badly, yet not give us any hard evidence to make us believe.

Try as I may I can't contribute that experience to a supernatural being. Is that my fault? Perhaps. But I shouldn't feel bad because if god is so great that I can't possibly comprehend him/her, than I haven't really suffered much.

That reminds me of another question, if god is so unknowable and so beyond our comprehension, why is the religion section of my local bookstore full of books telling me how god thinks, how he wants me to act, how I can know god (isn't he unknowable?), or what god thinks I should have for breakfast? And yes, of course I'm being somewhat flippant. That's all I've got left with no substantive material to counterpoint. That's what happens to me when I try to think about religion logically. I'm sorry, religion makes no sense to me anymore.

97. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71256 by Fedler on September 18, 2007 at 8:07 am

Christians may indeed find their justifications for doing evil based on the Bible, but they have misinterpreted. I'm sure some might say that Islamic extremists have misinterpreted as well, but you don't have to go far when the Koran says you're doing Allah a favor when you, "Kill the infidels!" (the Christians and the Jews)

Whereas, something like the crusades may well have been justified through Scripture, but I would like to find the verse where Jesus says, "Make them convert or die." It's not there.

Who is to say your interpretation is right? As far as I know there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of religions in the world. It seems much more plausible to me that religion is just another form of myth handed down and spread through human societies, both as a means of comfort and control. (In this regard I would recommend 'Breaking the Spell' by Daniel Dennett, or 'Guns, Germs, and Steel' by Jared Diamond).

Justifications don't need exact verbiage because it's based on interpretation. Using some cherry-picking of my own, I find "Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring upon this city and upon all her towns all the evil that I have pronounced against it, because they have hardened their necks, that they might not hear my words (Jer 19:15). This is only one quote, but I've seen many more quoted here, and many that are much worse. While the explicit quote "Make them convert or die" may not be in there (I can't say for certain), I can easily see how justification can be made for horrible actions in religion's name. But again, the bible can used to justify anything, so it's best not to refer to it.

And for those who have said that the approach of the Muslim and the Christian is to IMPOSE our will and that our goal is the same is purely a lie. For example, what am I trying to do here? Am I forcing people at gunpoint to do what I say? Not at all. Would I? You might think so but you're simply wrong. I wouldn't harm a hair of your head.

Thank you, as I don't have much hair left :-). However, you must admit that you feel my life, and the life of others, would be much better if we simply believed. Seeing this through you most likely elect politicians and other representatives who think the same. This sets an agenda of religious belief, not human concern. I may feel the same way as you in many ways on many different topics, but religion is not one of them. De-prioritize your religious beliefs and I bet we could see eye to eye on many more things as well.

98. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71237 by Fedler on September 18, 2007 at 6:16 am

Not so my friend. No Christian can take the Bible and become a terrorist.

Yet, many religious terrorists (including Christians) manage to find their justifications in the Bible (or other similar sacred text).

It is not my place to exact God's wrath or take out His vengeance, even though it may well be just. The Scripture says...

Revcort, regurgitating Scripture to us doesn't help. The validity of sacred texts are spurious at best, so should not be counted by either side as scoring any points. Because, as you say…

I love how liberals love to paint Islamic terrorists and Christians in the same light. It is simply not true. There are some wackos out there that have done many things in the name of Christianity, but they are not true believers. They have either misinterpreted or simply cherry picked what they liked and ran with it.

I would agree that Islamic terrorists are different from Christians, but they have the same goal of imposing religious beliefs on other people. Islamic terrorists are just less subtle. Also, how do you know the 'wackos' were not true believers? I bet the suicide bomber would disagree with you on that point. Finally, cherry-picking is what you are doing, my friend, whenever you quote scripture verses.

Revcort, I mean no offence, but when you come on hear saying your goal is to spread the "truth", but only doing so by making bare assertions with no evidence, you're likely to be dismissed rather quickly. Your blind adherence to your faith is scary and makes me weep for the future.

99. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71092 by Fedler on September 17, 2007 at 8:09 pm

I do not believe I can change your mind or your heart- only God can. I pray He does. If He does not, He will still be just in whatever He chooses to do. He will be glorified in all things- whether He chooses to exact justice upon those who hate Him or to show the amazing riches of His grace toward those whom He has taught to love Him. All glory to God, no matter what.

Does anyone else take this as "God is right, no matter what, his actions will be justified"?

Wow, I feel the strong urge to strap bombs to myself and show the love of God to my fellow man...

100. How the Public Resolves Conflicts Between Faith and Science

Comment #70374 by Fedler on September 15, 2007 at 6:30 am

I agree, atp. The conclusion seemed to contradict the rest of the article. If religious believers knowingly and willingly prefer to disregard the proven facts in favor of unsubstantiated religious beliefs, than that is a clash - a very personal, very intentional, and very conscious clash.

I guess sometimes it truly is just easier and more comfortable to believe the lie.