« Palin to share stage with Islam critic | Main | 'Book of Mormon' picks up 14 Tony nominations »

May 2, 2011

Peruvian president says John Paul II killed bin Laden

The Associated Press reports:

Peruvian President Alan Garcia says Pope John Paul II should get credit for the death of Osama bin Laden.

The late pope was beatified on Sunday and Garcia says: "His first miracle was to remove from the world the incarnation of evil, the demonic incarnation of crime and hatred, giving us the news that the person who blew up towers and buildings is no longer."

Garcia made the comment Monday as he inaugurated a hydroelectric power station.

Garcia also says bin Laden's death also vindicates President George W. Bush's decision "to punish Bin Laden and patiently continue this work that has born fruit."

Posted by Matthew Hay Brown at 2:01 PM | | Comments (140)


Can he shut the mouth of the Donald quack a duck Trump and make that his second miracle? Can he find for us the seven foot body of Osama before it is torn to shreds by sharks and prove to us that the miracle the US govt. claims actually happened? Can he find Ayman al Zawahiri for us too?
This Peruvian guy needs to be admitted to a mental hospital. I can see how saints are created and confirmed--their saintly credentials are embellished by the blathering of the believers and become part of the folklore of the Catholic Church to hold the illiterate and the gullible hostage.
R Anon

From the website.

"Many atheists have responded to Christian intolerance with equal intolerance towards the Christians. Atheists have been known to refer to Christians as "hopelessly deluded," along with several other uncomplimentary names. Madalyn Murray O'Hair and Jon Garth Murray in their "FAQs About Atheism" describe religious beliefs as "old, silly ideas that we should have abandoned by now." They also do not capitalize the names of any religions, God, or the name of Jesus Christ, which is simply an open act of disrespect.

It should be noted that they also say (supposedly speaking for all atheists) that God "was never anything other than a fictional idea," suggesting that atheists actively disbelieve in God. Many atheists, however, simply refuse to believe in God, but don't go so far as to disbelieve in Him.

It seems like most of the atheists who speak out (rather than hide) hold beliefs like these. When they make their atheism public, they seem to immediately go on the offensive, attacking the beliefs of Christians before they can attack their disbeliefs. The entire FAQ referred to above seems more like one long treatise against Christianity than an explanation of atheism.

My point here is that if we atheists expect to be treated with respect by Christians, we have got to treat them with respect too. We say that we want the right to believe whatever we want without fear of discrimination. Well, if we expect to get that right, we have to practice what we preach: tolerance."

R Anon some good advice from a rellow athiest. You should consider following it.

R-Anon - Sounds like they have some pretty potent mushrooms growing down there in Peru.

(Clay) Anonymous - Don't hold your breath waiting for Atheists to show respect to institutions that are superstition and myth based, have a history of killing those who disagreed with those superstitions, and are selling the idea that one can cheat the knacker by subscribing to the con that requires giving one tenth of your income while you're alive, for a product they don't have to deliver until you are dead. Suckerism deserves no respect.

Whoops! , but I'll bet you knew that last post was from me all along.

Without indulging in name-calling and the arrogance that comes from purporting to know The Truth, I have to agree that President Garcia’s statement begs ridicule. Much as our absent friend Clay so frequently attributed acts of nature to a seriously pissed-off god, this man gives a six-years-dead Pope credit for a horrific act of violence (neither unprovoked nor even unwelcome, but horrific, nonetheless). Would this make the Navy SEALS puppets (drones?)? And which Pope should take credit for the attacks of September 11, 2001, as long as we’re handing out retroactive celestial responsibilities. I am reminded of the interview I heard last night with a tearful woman praising Jesus that she and her family was spared death from the Tuscaloosa tornado … as she picked up the rubble to which her home had been reduced by that same omnipotent “loving” god, who apparently caused a steel beam to be thrown through her house.

Littel you are correct I recognized your combination of insults and your own personal beliefs that you desperately try and pass off as fact.

I demanded nothing I suggested R Anon follow the advice of a fellow atheist. Your bias and bigotry cloud your objectivity. I guess that’s why you resort to personal attacks and appeals to ridicule and other assorted fallacies.

Unless you have some proof that all religion is myth based, and we both know you don’t, your opinion while colorful is means nothing. For someone who so often claims to be logical and rational you make far too many illogical, irrational and emotional diatribes to sell your own beliefs. Lets face Little the only difference between us is where we place our faith. That has been proven by your reluctant admission that using logic and reason all one could do is question God’s existence.

Boy Robert--Anonymous is now an atheist? Did we convert him or her? Is this the same Anonymous who has been hounding you?

Anonymous, I love your assertion, "Some good advice from a rellow atheist...." The rellow, which I understand is a typo should be replaced by another more appropriate typo, "yellow atheist!"

I know you set a lot of premium on respect--you go your way to take on religion--or not to take it on--I won't stand in your way or censure you for your waywardness--being a religionist one day and an atheist the next-- splitting hairs about disbelief in god versus refusal to believe in god--what is that Anonymous? Refusing to believe in god, perhaps a kind of juvenile delinquency- a childish opposition until convincing evidence for god presents itself as opposed to disbelief--a stubborn refusal to keep one's mind open to the possibility of god? Will you condescend to explain the difference?

You probably think your atheist mind is open and mine shut--yours superior and mine inferior and therefore I deserve your gentle admonition from the high priesthood of atheism?

Ah Anonymous, you are a prima donna of atheism, if indeed you are an atheist--a prude-- and your sense of humor and of irony are dead. You sound like the dead sea scroll of atheism--try to become the alive sea droll--it's fun.
R Anon

I disbelieve the earth is flat. I refuse to believe the earth is flat. Not sure what the difference is.

R Anon I had no idea you were so full of intolerance and hate as to mock a fellow atheist like the one who posted such intelligent advice. Mocking me that isn’t surprising. Since you can’t support your diatribes I expect you to resort to ridicule and name calling. I guess anyone theist, agnostic or atheist who doesn’t share your closed minded intolerance needs to be ridiculed.

As for your mind I can only comment on its appearance and nothing more. Based on your posts I’d have to say it’s every bit as closed as Littel and the most extreme fundamentalists I’ve encountered. The premium on respect as you call it is something that sadly I doubt you will ever comprehend. Both you and Little could learn quite a bit from Bankstreet and others like him who can voice their views without the need to be disrespectful and insulting.

You do for atheism what people like Frank Phelps do for Christianity.

Bankstreet you make a good point President Garcia’s statement practically asks for ridicule.

(Clay) Anonymous - Calling someone "the most extreme fundamentalists I’ve encountered" because they don't believe something ridiculous, is a stretch of imagination that can only be expected from someone who dogmatically believes something doctrinally complex that is based on no proof at all. Maybe you are making the case for fundamentalist skepticism, and oxymoron if there ever existed one.

Littel not believing in God isn't why I called anyone an extreme fundamentalist. What makes you an extreme fundamentalist is your contempt for opposing beliefs and your steadfast willingness to present your as fact despite the obvious logical conclusion that neither side is provable. That your desire to eliminate what you don't like and your need to resort to ridicule and personal attacks is what defines you as an extreme fundamentalist.

We've covered the issue of proof many times. A believer requires no proof and an athiest such as you would accept none as valid. Leaving that aside there is the logical fallacy that lack of proof makes your assertion correct.

You really are the athiest verion of Clay.

(Clay) Anonymous - The difference between what you believe, a highly structured, ritual filled, absolutist doctrinaire dogma driven accumulation of handed down delusional superstition and myth, is nowhere comparable, even at the most farcical stretch of your limited imagination, to my logically derived skepticism of the pile of drek you subscribe to. To even make the attempt to paint your ridiculous beliefs as being equal in value to my honest, sincere and well earned disbelief is LUDICROUS.

Littel starting with the obvious you can't prove your claim of my faith being delusional superstition and myth. Religious skepticism generally refers to doubting given religious beliefs or claims. You go well beyond that to the other absolute. God doesn't exist and is delusion and myth. For you to even try and claim logical skepticism indicates either you are either ignorant as to what skepticism is or you’ve deluded yourself. Your absolute denial has far less behind it than my belief. As I've said before we both are going on faith. The only difference is where it's place. You can keep telling yourself otherwise it doesn't change the reality of the situation. I suspect that's what really bugs you and creates the hate. You want to be able to prove your belief and can’t and never will be able to do so.

Littel skepticism is doubt. You go well beyond that to disbelief. You call those who don’t agree with your disbelief delusional. You even attack agnostics because they don’t subscribe to your absolutism. You make statements with absolutely no basis in fact. You use ridicule, personal attacks irrelevant conclusions to make you case. At the end of it all you are left with the same argument. You believe no proof has ever existed for God therefor He doesn’t exist. Even if one accepts the your premise of proof as true that doesn’t validate your conclusion any more than if I claimed your inability to disprove God exists proves existence. If you were truly following an honest, sincere and logical path your conclusion would be to question or doubt the existence of God. Since you go beyond that with no logical basis there is absolutely nothing logical about your position. The only thing ludicrous is your belief that you are using logic.

(Clay) Anonymous - What is ludicrous is the idea that the lack of proof that a god exists equally supports my contention that such a creature is improbable to the extreme (a logical assumption based on the absolute lack of any supporting evidence) and your ridiculous position, based on the SAME LACK of proof, that not only does this creature exist, but it exists in a highly developed form, has a body of absolute rules, and is somehow supreme, but accessible to every Human being on Earth. Without any supporting proof, you haven't got a logical leg to stand on. Everything you believe is true, only because you believe it is true, AND NOTHING ELSE. In the absence of any other verifiable supporting evidence, I would have to ask you, considering how much you are asking us to swallow based on so little is, Who the hell do you think you are?

Littel you know seem to want to argue more from the true agnostic position then your normal atheist position. The issue of supporting evidence itself is debatable. I leave that aside as since you would dismiss anything presented anyway. You know attempt to paint yours as somehow the only logical position. As stated many times over and regardless of what you want to believe the only purely logical position would be the agnostic one. Any further in either direction and you move away from logic to faith or beliefs. You can dance around that all you like. You can try and minimalize one side based on your opinion. But you can’t support it which is why you resort to ridicule.

All I am is someone confronting you with what you claim you have logic. If it were true you’d be able to make a logical rebuttal. Your beliefs are no more grounded in logic than mine. Attempting to use probabilities which cannot be validated to minimalize an opposing argument is a logical fallacy. You cannot now or ever make a true logical argument that provides a definite yes or no on the existence of God using just logic. Sorry if the truth is hard to swallow.

I’ve never asked you or no one else to believe anything. The only one trying to ask people to swallow anything is you. You continue to try and sell your beliefs as based on logic. You continue to ridicule and launch personal attacks on anyone who doesn’t share your view of things. You are the one who believes compromise is weakness. That coexisting with those whose opinions and beliefs differ is surrender. You are the one crusading to eliminate what do not think to be true. So maybe you should ask yourself that question.

Comments are wrongly and poorly monopolized by two sad atheists! Criticism of non-catholic beliefs, egs, beautification, pope's assumed miracles, the president of Peru's political motives for this absurd statement will be rejected by catholics. The worship of popes, saints, etc. is idolatory according to the Bible. Since they couldn't find the pope a miracle while he was alive they fabricated this one after his death! (LOL).

Welp, thanks for your yelp. Two sad atheists you say. Anonymouse has been at the forefront of the monopolization process, his comments leading the pack of comments in number and tenacity of purpose. One can hardly keep up with Anonymouse's cop chases robber game with Robert. Hence it is not true that two sad atheists have monopolized this thread. You say the sad atheists will lose the argument by criticizing beatification etc because the Catholics will stand by their rituals like bulwark. And hence, you claim, that the best argument to defeat these stubborn Catholics is one that posits that the Bible, the great Book itself, condemns idolatry. Ha, ha, Welp, your yelp won't wash with the Catholics. If you think your Bible based terse opposition to the Catholic way will make the Catholics retreat or surrender to the force of your wit and the measure of your rationale, think again. They will tell you that the mother church has been the Christian bully pulpit starting in Roman times, that the Catholics invented the Bibull, that the Protestant interpretation of this migrainous confusing tome is no more than heretical, ignominious nonsense and that for you to yelp otherwise makes you a sad Bible mutilating midget.
R Anon--yours truly,
one of the sad atheists

welp I no athiest. I'm an a catholic myself. Maybe you should try being less prejudiced sometime. While I'm sure there will be catholics who do what you suggest I haven't run into any yet. You might also want to educate yourself on practices of the catholic church before you comment. Funny but your post comes off making you sound like the same sort of narrow closed minded thinker you were trying to make catholics out to be.

I have to agree, to a certain extent, with welp. Too often these discussions end up in a pointless pi**ing war between Mr Littel, Anonymous, and R Anon as to the validity of religious faith (with no specific reference to the matter ostensibly under consideration). No one can "win" this argument; its exchanges are predictable and just a bit tedious. To welp's credit, he did, for better or worse, take the discussion back to a consideration of the matter at hand: the notion of JPIV's involvement in the assassination of OBL. I just feel this blog is made more valuable if we stick (more or less) to the "assigned topic."

Anonymouse--Welp was talking about Robert Littel and me, not about you. No one, not even a Welp in the middle of a pathetic yelp would mistake you for an atheist. Why? You neither have the intellectual heft nor the intestinal fortitude to be an atheist. That said you do have a penchant for mutilating the English language. I hope you are not one of those who rail against illegal immigrants because they won't learn the English language. The ones who rail and rant thus are usually the ones delivering the English language some pummeling grammatical blows. For example, Anonymouse, you have written in your erudite repartee to Welp, "I no atheist!" Unless the very word atheist reduced you to a blithering infant, your sentence should have read, "I am no atheist!" Of course you may be setting a new gold standard for English by eliminating the word "am" from the language altogether.
R Anon

Still trying to convince yourself and the world of the myth of atheist intellectual superiority R Anon. You managed to find the result of not doing a proper proof read before posting. You want to confuse form with substance. It’s not surprising those whose position lack substance focus on form. It takes no intellectual heft to hurl insults and personal attacks. It takes no intestinal fortitude ho down the path you and Little are on. Like Littel you seem to have a closed mind and biased opinion about anyone who doesn’t share your beliefs and views. Keep dwelling on spelling, grammar and punctuation that way you can stay away from the reality that your views are no more grounded in logic and reason than mine.

R Anon since you will likely comment on it let me save you the trouble "ho" should be "to go". That's what happens when you revise and edit a response too often and fail to do a final proof read.

Unless I missed something maybe now you can focus on substance as opposed to form.

R Anon - Nice, we now "have a closed mind and biased opinion" because we will not entertain the idea that a god, or gods exist, just because people too stupid to accept that there has never been the tiniest shred of proof that said go/gods exist, or have ever existed, insist on interjecting their infantile beliefs on us all. If they followed their stupid irrational beliefs in private and didn't try to reorder society (unconstitutionally in many cases), to fit the tenets of those ridiculous beliefs, we would leave them alone. Someday we (Humanity) will look back at them as an archaic Human form, left at the cusp of a new advancement , with the status of proto-Human as their legacy, Homo-Absolutist Degenerencus perhaps.

Littel you still don’t get it do you? No one is asking you to entertain any change in your beliefs with regards to God. What you choose to believe is your business. Your comment regarding proof like so many others is an opinion that you will defend with the same blind faith the most conservative Christian would defend the opposite way. It’s a no win argument because for you no proof would be accepted. Since believers require no proof why waste the time. If you wish to cling to thinking that a tree only falls in the woods when it is heard that is certainly your right. That’s the same flawed logic you keep holding out like some atheist ultimate truth.

At no time have I ever attempted to change your views. All I’ve done is point out the obvious fact which you deny. That what you claim as fact and based on logic is neither. It’s rather hypocritical for someone who has called for the end of religion as much as you to complain about society being reordered by believers. All extremist try and reorder society, theist and atheist. Your ignorance of constitutional law matches your intolerance for those who see things differently than you. Fortunately the constitution prevents you from doing what you want most the elimination of believers in God. I’m sorry to have to tell you that will never happen. You can keep deluding yourself that your beliefs will lead to something better for the human species. Unless you believe that being disrespectful, insulting, ridiculing and attacking those who do not see things as you is an improvement.

One last thing save the “we” comments. You speak for no one except yourself and perhaps R Anon. It just makes you look even more foolish.

(Clay) Anonymous - As long as religions, and I don't care which of the many supposed possessors of "ultimate truth" based on NOTHING but their irrational desire to believe a clearly defined pile of absolute rubbish, we are talking about, are trying to reorder society to conform to those irrational beliefs, it cannot be allowed unless you can make the case for the god derived crap you would impose on us all. The very fact that you avow that you need no proof to justify your beliefs, illustrates your complete divorce from the principles of reason and logic and shows how the religious position's claiming to operate within frameworks that utilize those concepts, are nothing but a bald faced totally adulterated lies. You are a fraud, a cheat and a liar, with the in-enviable ability to lie to yourself and not even catch yourself doing it.

Littel “based on nothing” is an opinion of yours nothing more. Why should I place any value on it because you say it? You can keep on shouting it all you like that doesn’t make it true. For someone who employs as many logical fallacies as you to accuse others of being irrational of “divorced from logic” shows your little you understand the basic concepts of logic. Your continued need to make up and in some cases out right lie about things you choose not to believe your own desperation.. How many times have you claimed no need to justify your own beliefs which you hold out as ultimate truth? That’s an act of faith not logic. Face it neither of our beliefs can be substantiated using logic. They are both acts of faith. The difference between us is I’m honest enough to admit it.

The only person trying to reorder anything is you. The only one trying to impose anything is and has always been you. You are the one constantly advocating elimination of what you don’t believe or like. I haven’t seen anyone mention making you or anyone else believe in God. Another difference between us is while I find everything you say to be completely worthless and pure garbage I’d defend your right to voice those views. Somehow I doubt you’d do the same for me. You ratchet up the abusive attacks when you are cornered and exposed as you did in that last response in a desperate attempt to drive off the other person. All that does is show how weak a foundation you stand on.

Bobby how about you elaborate on how religions are trying to reorder society to conform to their irrational beliefs? Since proof is a big deal for you try and back up that answer with some. Also could you differentiate how what you want isn’t an attempt to reorder society with your own irrational beliefs?

I’m looking forward to reading your response.

If anything, the on going attempt at dialogue with religionists, shows how impossible it is to find common ground with people who claim absolute truth based on accumulated myth and superstition. There is no common ground, and societies throughout time have always been inhibited, and sometimes destroyed, by their inability to rid themselves of such rubbish based institutions , once they have outlived their limited usefulness.

Somehow a new "ultimate truth" was always waiting in the wings to replace the old order, as civilizations and civilization grew, along with our ability to understand the mechanics of our surroundings. Each step religion has taken has pretty much been an effort to make the new god a bit more powerful than the old god and a little more abstract . Very early man understood almost nothing that could be considered abstract and invented universal spirituality to answer his unanswerable ponderables. He worshipped everything, imbuing all objects with magical powers, both good and bad, in which he could build a rationalization for what he had evolved to understand, the concept of life and death, being and non being, the what for the imponderable why of existence. Once he began to figure out some of the mysteries around him, the universal omnipresence of spirits in everything was abstracted to specific objects, like the Moon, or the Sun, or a mountain or rock, or any combinations they could invent. Eventually these symbols (symbolism being the first sign of sentience) evolved into gods, many many gods.

The gods that ruled the the lack of understanding in our ancestor's minds took many forms, with fanciful beasts and animals being rife among them. Eventually some of them evolved into creatures that were part beast and part Man. Some of these interacted sexually with Humans, creating all sorts of hybrid creatures and unusual story lines. Eventually Man imbued his gods with Human features only, with personalities that would bring a psychiatrist today, foaming at the mouth to get them on their couch.

The next great leap came with the Jews and the Zoroastrians, who both seem to have stumbled onto the supreme being concept, where the god was omnipresent universal and abstracted to the point of invisibility. So pervasive was the invisible aspect of this concept that depictions of this god were forbidden (a tradition carried on by Muslims, to the extreme), and carried on today by delusionalists who won't mention the name god and won't even spell it (G-d).

The final abstraction being achieved (universal invisibility and a dispassionate nature that seems to ignore us, no matter how it is beseeched) , the next logical step seemed to be a stepping away from god concepts altogether (which explains why so many Jews have moved into non-theism), but ( and the "but" is a big one because it is a throw-back to earlier archaic concepts) Christianity reared its ugly head. God had a son? God became Man? the reestablishment of pagan concepts of god / Human hybrids were reborn at the exact moment when it, if Judaism had been the dominant doctrine of the time, never would have caught on. Born out of frustration and fear over the powerlessness of Judaism in the face of the Roman deification of Man, was a new golden calf to be worshipped and hung on every wall, painted in images and hung around your every neck. That is what you hold up as ultimate truth and it is just the latest (and most dangerous ) wrong turn in the struggle of intellect to win out over superstition and fear. We have technically evolved to the point where the archaic rationales no longer serve the function of our species to survive, and species' survival is what life is all about. We will not survive if we continue to carry rationales for our purpose that do not address the real problems facing us, like over-population, religious wars (soon to be fed with nuclear complications), and for rationales that abrogate our responsibilities on Earth in favor of a clearly made-up reality that so many stupidly believe awaits them after death. Religion is the greatest threat to a here and now, that is already headed for the pooper if we don't take positive steps to deal with reality from a sane, well considered, fact based world view. Believe in gods, and you are the archaic enemy of Humanity, whether you like it or not. To see it all laid out in a clever narrative, read James A. Michener's "The Source" .

The effort by religion to reorder society by unconstitutionally making abortion illegal (violates the Separation Principle of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of The Constitution of The United States of America) is the most blatant example I can come up with and by itself it is enough. There are others, but you already know that, so wasting my time listing them for you seems pointless.

Bobby since abortion isn’t a religion but a medical procedure could you elaborate on how you figure it’s covered under the Establishment Clause? Just because a religion takes a position on an issue doesn’t make it a violation of the Establishment Clause. Actually there aren't examples except in your overactive imagination. That was why I asked. If I’m wrong it shouldn’t be tough to back your claim with some proof.

Littel nothing in that lengthy response is based on anything except your own opinions. It also appears you that wants to reorganize society to rid it of what you personally believe to be a problem. I’ve read Michener and just because some lays out what others believe to be a clever argument doesn’t make it valid. C.S. Lewis lays out some better ones on “Real Christianity”. G. K. Chesterton made many as well.

We will not survive if we don’t learn to have dialogue with those who see and believe things differently. The real problems facing us having nothing to do religion or atheism. They have to do with our inability to compromise with others. Religion isn’t the threat. Intolerance, arrogance, greed, lust is. It has always been the source of the worlds problems. Religion is often used to justify actions, but rarely if ever is it the actual cause.
Your fact based world view is a myth. Since there isn’t even complete agreement as to what the problems are or how to correct them how exactly does eliminating religion help? In your need to stamp out belief in God, you also stamp out things like the “Golden Rule” and many other valuable teachings not just of Christianity but of other faiths as well.

In order to be clearly made up as you claim you should be able to support that with some fact. In reality you can’t. Just as you claim religionist due you make up your own version of past events to fit your own beliefs. You have a right to your beliefs. What you don’t have is the right to deny others the same.

rino - Despite your using the infantile form of my name in an obvious, transparent and childish attempt to marginalize my importance (much the way the Right-wing has tried to do to our legitimately elected president), I will answer you anyway. The idea that the fetus is a person is an idea that can only be considered a religious position due to the requirement that a mass of protoplasm, so insignificant that your presumed god allows it to spontaneously self abort 80% of the time, due to the mechanical failure to implant in the uterus, can hardly be sacred enough to warrant protection. Even if considered sacred by believers, the notion cannot be proven sufficiently enough (or at all) to warrant using the coercive power of the state to enforce it (that pesky separation principle mentioned above) on women who hold a differing opinion. It is not that religion "just happens" to believe the same thing as the weak rationale argument being put forth contends, but that religion has grabbed onto the weak argument because under The Constitution, you haven't got a chance to win legally, and you have NOTHING else. Win by contravening The Constitution, and you will find a very angry bunch of people (especially women) who will exact revenge. I would not want to be a fundamentalist, evangelical, Protestant, or Cathoholic church looking for fire insurance after you do that.

(Clay) Anonymous - Asking me to prove that what you believe is made-up, is as stupid a request as anyone can make, even by Clay's standards. One cannot proven a negative assertion that questions the existence of something that has never been shown to exist, and your insistence that I do only illustrates your complete disconnect from understanding the concepts of reason and logic. You might as well ask me to describe the inviolate absolute physical dimensions of a fart.

There are a lot of aspects of our reality that will have to be dealt with if we are to save us from the head-long doom we are headed for, and the intransigent, absolutist, inflexible nature of the archaic institution of religion, not only doesn't help, but greatly hinders our ability to deal with our problems. The math has already precluded any compromise on the population problem, and the fact that religion is an institution of absolutes, not very likely that compromise will be forthcoming from that quarter on that, or any other issue. Religion is the stone blocking the road and it must be removed if we are to continue down the road of Human advancement. Religion offers us NOTHING but a delusional crutch and the promise that the world will end, and that we will all go to an eternal Disneyland in the sky. No thanks, get out of the way.

Considering how many times and how much effort you have put into marginalizing the importance of person who has different ideas or views than yours complaining about it being done to you is laughable. I actually voiced no opinion one way or the other on the topic of abortion other than to point out that your attempt to claim it under the Establishment Clause was incorrect. You are attempting to change the issue from your original incorrect claims regarding the constitution and religion trying to reorder society. You made no attempt to refute what I said simply change the focus. A popular tactic when one is wrong and doesn’t want to admit it.

There is no point in debating abortion the matter has already been settled in the courts. Unless either the constitution gets amended, not likely, or some new scientific discovery sheds more light on when life truly begins, also not likely, abortion will be legal regardless of what anyone thinks. However, since you took the time to frame an argument I’ll take the time to let the air out of it. Your attempt to dehumanize the unborn is hypocritical after crying about me doing it to you. It also is immaterial and irrelevant. The Establishment Clause doesn’t apply at all. If that’s what your sticking with you might want to consider studying the constitution . The Supreme Court decided that a right to privacy under the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion. The establishment clause had and has nothing to do with it. Those last two sentences are about as dumb a reason as I’ve heard. When did we decide law based on a group or people getting angry?

How about you stay on topic and answer my original question? Can you elaborate on how religions are trying to reorder society to conform to their irrational beliefs? If you don’t want to be marginalized then try answering the question and do it without the childish threats, flawed logic and inaccurate application of the constitution.

rino - The religious Right has been waging, with corporate backing (after all, the rich don't care whether the rest of us can get abortions when needed, because they always seem to get what they want, when they need it anyway) a war of attrition at the state level against abortion, placing one impediment after another in the way of a woman exercising her right. In Mississippi, Nebraska, South Dakota and several other states, so many obstacles have been put in place that most poor women are unable to get service at all.

As to your damn rights, I have no intention of forcing you to have an abortion against your will and you are free to act on your archaic beliefs by never having one, but the second you force a woman to carry a fetus to term against her will, even tacitly, then you have crossed a line that will come back to bite you in the keister.

The Establishment Clause, by the way, has EVERYTHING to do with abortion because the impetus behind the notion that a fetus is a person is dependant on the placement of a soul into it at the moment of formation. Because that is the driving rationale behind the action of anti-choice zealots, it is a totally religious position that CANNOT be forced on the rest of us. The protection of the separation of church and state principle, protects us from people like you, especially in the face of the incremental subterfuge now being carried out by your side. As to the angry people you should be worrying about, they have rights and if you take them away, you will have to be ready for their effort to take back the Constitution your actions threaten. They will act under the principles of an earlier document (That begins with "When in the course of Human events...) that will clearly be relevant once you put The Constitution into abeyance.

For someone who rails so much against what he perceives as superstition and fiction you seem willing to do the same with your corporate backed religious right nonsense. You have no proof of the existence of such a thing. You see conspiracies where there are none. The pro-abortion side has plenty of firepower some of it funded by taxpayer dollars from organizations like planned parenthood among others. If you are going to attack others for lack of proof then explain why the same standard shouldn’t apply to you.

The right you claim for woman was manufactured by the Supreme Court. The dissenting opinion written by Justice Rehnquist said it best. “I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes.” If the establishment clause were relevant it would have been cited by the court in its ruling. It wasn’t the court decided that a right to privacy under the due process clause in the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion . The establishment clause has absolutely no relevance here. Abortion isn’t a religious issue. Those who oppose it believe the unborn child to be a human life subject to the same human rights as you or I. A soul has absolutely nothing to do with it. That is the left wing attempt to keep from looking at the issue of when life begins. You attempt to marginalize the unborn and paint it as a religious issue to avoid having to consider what might be an inconvenient truth. The establishment clause has absolutely no bearing on the issue unless you are considering abortion link to establishment or free exercise of religion.

You are debating an issue that is settled as far as I’m concerned. Let me repeat my prior comment since you ignored it “There is no point in debating abortion the matter has already been settled in the courts. Unless either the constitution gets amended, not likely, or some new scientific discovery sheds more light on when life truly begins, also not likely, abortion will be legal regardless of what anyone thinks” Why don’t you try actually answering the questions I asked. “
“How religions are trying to reorder society to conform to their irrational beliefs? Since proof is a big deal for you try and back up that answer with some. Also could you differentiate how what you want isn’t an attempt to reorder society with your own irrational beliefs?”

rino - Please, if you are going to pull the old hide the truth up your butt game to try to classify exactly what is happening as being a wild-eyed conspiracy, you are going to have to assume that everyone is as stupid as the people you are trying to fool. Are you telling me that there isn't a concerted religious based and in many ways successful attempt going on to eat away at abortion rights, not only at the state level, but at the national level (defunding of Planned Parenthood by Congress for one example)? How stupid do you think we all are?

As to Renquist, a doctrinaire Right-wing absolutist, who understands full well that the anti choice argument cannot win if it is framed in religious terms (Separation Principle again), has been trying to bend the whole conversation away from the religious rationale. This, of course, puts the whole question into an arena where the debate that a fertilized zygote is a person cannot be trumped by the mere opinions of those who would force women to breed against their will. If you are counting on corporate owned spin-whores that have been expensively placed on the Court to trash The Constitution, to get your narrow and freedom limiting religious positions turned into law, we are going to have to expect them to try to reinterpret the argument to fit the scenario you are trying to spin, and that people like me are not going to let you get away with it.

The Constitution was only amended once, in a manner that sought to limit freedom (18th Amendment, later rightfully repealed ), and we all know how that worked out. The religious Right of that time framed the argument in non-religious terms, but there was no doubt (just as there is no doubt about who is driving the anti-choice push) that religion was unconstitutionally behind it.

Bobbie apparently in your case the answer is you are stupid. There are concerted efforts by both pro-life and pro-choice advocates to effect changes in what you believe to be a right. Regardless if you agree with them they have as much right to lobby for their side as you do. Actually planned parenthood should have been defunded a while ago not because of abortion but trimming of government overspending.

Why do you insist on this moronic harping of abortion as some sort of religious issue? Considering your continued misrepresenting the issue as religion I’d say it was you who feels his argument cannot win unless framed as a religious argument. Corporate spin whores? You are a real piece of work. You spout off left wing nut job nonsense as if so obvious we all ought to see it. Here is a novel idea. Prove your claims with some facts. You are as delusional as any religious zealot. People like you are the problem along with the nut jobs on the far right who both misrepresent the constitution in your own twisted interpretation. By the way no one is forcing anyone to do anything. Most pro-lifers simply don’t want abortion used as birth control. There are plenty of other ways to do that without abortion. That you use the word breed as opposed to pregnancy is a sad attempt to dehumanize. Well I guess the more you do that the less you have to face that possible inconvenient truth.

Bobbie why don’t we drop an issue that I’ve already said has been settled in the courts. The constitution does not deny religions or religious individuals from advocating issues of law. Your warped interpretation of the constitution is part of the problem. Answer my questions with some facts not fairy tales. Form what I can tell the only person trying to reorder society with irrational beliefs is you. Stop diverting from the issue. I asked for you to support your irrational claims and so far you’ve try to make this an abortion debate. I guess that is my answer. You can’t back your claims. You accept them with all the unquestioning faith that you so readily attack in others. What’s really troubling is you don’t see it.

rino - Your only purpose here is to dilute the arguments of anyone who speaks out against a corrupted status quo, that has worked to service the nefarious goals of the corporate interests you have chosen to sell out to.

You ask for an example of religion's unwarranted and unwanted (at least by many of us) interference in the lives of every American, and then try to hang me up when I present the most glaringly obvious example. Your only interest is confrontation and your tool of choice is personal denigration of your opponent, trying to make them go on defense, so that the salient and inconvenient truths you don't want exposed, can get buried in a Gordian knot you want me to deal with, that is nothing more than a pile of you know what, flung at the proverbial fan. It is little more than feigned indignation, and It may impress the low-brow street brawler that exists at the central core of people who cannot relate on any other level except brute force, but it does not fool those who have seen the fetid hand of greed, that is seeking to drive all dialogue down the flag-waving, simplistic doctrinaire dogmatic path, operating through shills like you, to achieve their ends. The religious are just a tool to be used by the doctrinaire directed corporate Right, just like the idiots of the Tea Party , who have been conned into actively working against their own best interests, and your function here is to keep them from understanding how they are being used to make others rich. Selling out to those who have chosen to get all they can while the getting is good, while doing NOTHING to help fix our complicated societal ills (as they worsen), makes one a corporate whore. I have no doubt which street corner you seem to be working, and why...........self-serving greed.

Bobbie what I asked was for was for you to support your on how religions are trying to reorder society to conform to their irrational beliefs? You offered up a flawed example. Then when you could come up with no others chose to try and change the focus into a debate about abortion. My interest was to see if you could do what you demand of others.. I asked you to provide support and you attempted to twist a single issue and the constitution in a weak attempt to make your point. Now all of a sudden you are talking about the corrupted status quo? You’ve gone from complaining about change based on irrational beliefs to protecting a corrupted status quo. Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds?

Unable to make your case you now result to a combination of character assaination of and empty left wing rhetoric. The typical strategy of an extremist. Make a lot of noise and try and bully anyone questioning their extremist doctrine. In the end that’s all you can do because most of what you claim is unsupportable nonsense. Sorry Bobbie but your attempt to attack me simply proves how little basis in fact your ranting has behind it. I asked a simple question and you failed to answer it. The only thing I’m serving is being skeptical of both sides. Unlike you I haven’t blindly jumped on a side.

The problems we face or ills as you call them won’t be fixed by your left wing idiocy or the equally idiotic rants from the far right. Until them majority in the middle learns to tune out the empty deluded rants from both extremes I fear little will get solved. You have no solutions just a lot of useless, baseless concepts wrapped around a perversion of the constitution. Fortunately for the country and the world you represent a small minority. That gives me hope that one day the majority will wake up and ignore the ignorance and intolerance prevalent on both extremes and learn to work towards compromise to make meaningful changes where they are needed.

rino - We have been down this path before and it does not change the game you are, and have always been playing. Pretending to be a rationale centrist in support of a perceived middle ground level playing field, is only the latest trick in the Right-wing bag, because you know damn well that compromise is the last thing the Right-wing will tolerate, or have you not been paying attention to the lock-step intransigence being exhibited by the corporate owned party of "NO", in their effort to make President Obama fail, even if it sends the country into economic chaos. Do not even pretend you are not a Right-wing shill, planted here to paint the center and left of center as being radical, when the lunatic Michele Bachmann (you know her, the candidate for people who think Sarah Palin is too intellectual) segment of our population has to be protected (conserved if you will) from people telling the truth about what the wealth driven Right has in store for us all (including your sorry butt).

Every major paper in this country, that has an energetic blog functioning, has been targeted for monitoring by the Right and you are playing by the same game plan that these moderators are employing, by deliberately attacking, not the argument, but the person saying what you do not want heard. If you can't take possession of the argument by signing on peripherally and then redirecting it, then take every phrase uttered and launch a broad-based generalized attack that no one has time to address. This tactic reinforces the macho image easily tweaked in the targeted weak minded dolt you are trying to control, and makes any kind of response impossible because it just provides fodder for the next retort. Any unaddressed absurdities (and there will always be some just because of the volume ) can be flung back in the next attack, turning any new cherry picked, and out of context, phrases into fodder for the next go round. If that tactic fails, then go for a kill shot where it doesn't matter what you say as long as you can make it angry and sound semi-plausible. This is the Karen Hughes plan as taught to so called "Young Eagles" and then urged to hone it on blog sights in preparation for the campaign of hate driven vitriol that the Right plans to carry out against Barack Obama in the next election campaign. It, and anyone who participates it this effort is, even when they deny it (and denying it is part of the taught course) is a corporate prostitute of the lowest kind.

If you try to paint this scenario as left-wing paranoia, I have to remind you how far the Right has gone to get their way. The complete purchase of a political party, the partial purchase of the other party, hundreds of billions spent on lobbying efforts, the purchase of the majority on The Supreme Court (as the insultingly named "Citizens United " decision clearly shows, the creation, financing. and propagandizing of a group of clueless frustrated idiots into usable shock troops (Tea Party) and the fact that this blog is energetic, and close to the center of power, makes it impossible for it not to be targeted for control, and no one fits the bill for a trained corporate shill more than you. After all, what can you cost them, chump change I'll bet.

Bobbie you are so full of left wing crap it’s laughable. You view anyone even the slightest bit to the right of you as either as in league with the right or being duped by them. You tend to move back and forth from that point. You spout all the left wing rhetoric and back it with absolutely nothing. Deny it all you like, but considering all your venom is directed solely to the right to even suggest you are anything a left winger is either delusion or an outright lie. You can take your pick. As for where we stand on the political spectrum only one of us is criticizing one side only and that would be you. If you weren’t so caught up in radical extremist left wing propaganda you’d see the problems on both sides.

This all started because I asked you to support claims you made. All you’ve done so far is try to paint abortion as solely a religious issue, twisted the constitution and attacked me personally. You never actually answered my questions with anything meaningful. You are one of those clueless frustrated idiots making a lot of noise and doing nothing which moves us closer to solving any problems. Anyone who doesn’t see things through the warped distorted lens you see things through you ridicule and attack. The one thing you never due is support your claims with valid evidence or make rational arguments. For someone who regular bashes religion for selling a bunch of made up ideas you seem perfectly willing to peddle your own political ones.

If you want you arguments taken seriously then prove them to be true. Otherwise all I and all in the center will do is dismiss you just as easily as loud mouth buffoons like Olbermann, Beck, Moore and Limbaugh are dismissed. I knew you couldn’t back those original accusations any more than you back the ones in that verbose diatribe you just posted. It’s time to put up or shut up Bobbie. Answer my questions if you can.

rino - What could I possibly gain by dancing at the end of your string? Only an idiot living in an attic doesn't know what the forces of wealth are doing to enhance their position at the cost of the rest of society. Your effort to shove the intellectual center to the left and classify it as being extreme, in the face of the doctrinaire Rightist and corporate financed on going war to assert their absolute dominance, is laughable. The Right has set up a doctrinaire wall of dogma that they will not deviate from and are now demanding fealty from not only every Republican, but from the average citizen as well. Your job is to keep the already corrupted ignorant, in line, and act as a shield to protect them from what you incorrectly call the fringe left. The fact that you are calling the vast majority of citizens lunatic fringe leftists, despite their generally being non-committal and more interested in escapist TV, is only an effort on your part to get them to fear enough to let you get away with it.

I made the case for abortion being a religious question and you had no choice but to try to disconnect it from religion because without that disconnect anti abortionists don't have a leg to stand on. You are still trying to do it despite the fact that your position has been proven untenable, and UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The only reason you won't let it go is because the corporate right needs the support of the superstitious religionists who infect large rural areas of the South and West.

As to your deliberate monitoring of this site for the corporate Right, you are the only one who has shown up and is following the Karen Hughes (Spin prostitute for the Bush puppetacy) method of silencing your enemy, to the letter, including saying that you hate BOTH extremes, but some how only attack the left of center, and then lying about it to establish plausible deniability. You may fool the Clays and Tea Party dolts of the world, and you may even fool some of those marginally politically aware idiots who would rather bury themselves in "American Idol" or NASCAR, but you can only get so much mileage out of playing to the bottom of the heap. Unfortunately that may just be enough for you to dumb down the country enough for the complete corporate take-over we seem headed for, but you will have to put up with a few of us trying to stop it.

"hate driven vitriol"

You'd be the expert at that Littel. No one generates more of it than you.

Some how my id didn't show up on my last post.

Maybe after you answer my original questions you can answer these as well. Although I’m not holding my breath or betting on it.

What is your proof that the republican party is corporate owned. Keep in mind if you are going to point to money remember many corporations also support candidates on the left. Also keep in mind the enormous amounts spent by organized labor and trial lawyers just to name a few.

How exactly does asking you to support your assertions make me a Right-wing shill planted here?

Where is your support for the claim that the right has targeted any energetic blogs?

Why can't you simply disagree with others without name calling and ridicule?

Why shouldn't your posts be considered hate driven vitriol considering the volume of irrational anger laced name calling and ridicule you use.

Can you support any of those purchase claims made in your last paragraph.

If everything you claim is true you should be able to support it with intelligent, rational. logical arguments and facts instead of the irrational, paranoid, illogical rants you make. All I’m doing is holding you to the same standard you demand. There is no agenda I just want you to elaborate on how you came to such conclusions. I want you to make a convincing argument why anyone should take serious such accusations.

Bobbie care to comment on this?

It seems the right isn't the only side creating, financing. and propagandizing of a group of clueless frustrated idiots into usable shock troops. Don't even try and rationalize it. It's the same crap you rant about thr right doing. the truth is both sides do it. If you take off the tainted glasses of the extreme left you might be surprised what you see.

rino - Your job is to sell the idea that the Right-wing gives a rat's @$$ about the average citizen, not by showing the truth about how the right has been systematically looting the economy using the political Right as their tool, but by painting any criticism of the already well proven con being run as something that crazy loons on the Left are pulling out of their butts. If one is running a con, the most fundamental requirement is that the con cannot be recognized as a con and must be denied, and your actions have all been directed at doing just that. Your last rino labeled post was just doubling down on the tactics you have been using, exactly the way I have laid out for someone on the right, doing a job either for payment ,or perceived future payment, would do. You have also done exactly what is recommended when you are identified for the shill you are, by upping the level of mindless attack. If it looks like it, smells like it, quacks like it, and craps on the rug, you have to call it a duck and the same applies to manipulating political shills like you.

Littel you aren’t in the intellectual center or even close to it. So far you’ve answered all my legitimate questions with same reasoning the religious use which you consider delusional. Intellectuals don’t make allegations they can’t support. They answer questions with intelligent logical responses. They don’t attack the person asking the question and claim their claims to be so obvious they require no proof. That is an extremist. That you can’t tell the difference isn’t surprising. That you keep making the same unfounded claims and attacks tells the world what a radical far left extremist you are. The only person I’ve called a lunatic fringe leftist is you. You may have deluded yourself into thinking you are part of the majority in the center. If you were in the center you wouldn’t focus your criticisms and attacks solely at the right. You wouldn’t only see problems as coming from the right. You’d realize both sides have their positives and negatives. The fact that you don’t is what makes you a radical left winger.

Your case for abortion being a religious question was shown for the deluded lie it is. If it were solely a religious question there would be no pro-life atheist.

The only position I took was to dispute your incorrect use of the constitution. The areas you quoted weren’t even the ones the courts have used in rulings. You are such a fool you just close your eyes to fact and keep singing the same lies over and over. I guess you figure if you keep saying them they will be accepted as valid You are the one who keeps bringing up abortion Littel. I suggested several times we leave the issue since the courts have ruled on it. It only comes up when you mention it. To accuse me of not letting go is an outright lie on your part. That or you are so deluded you can’t process things objectively. That would explain your belief that you are in the center politically. Someone who called independents fence sitters as you have in the past is hardly in the center.

You can keep on making all the baseless lying accusations against me you like. It just proves correct what I’ve said about you. I’ve done nothing but ask you to support claims and assertions using intelligent reasonable responses. Your responses have been neither intelligent nor reasonable. The truth is you believe that somehow yours is the only intelligent solutions. That’s why you mock the majority. Your left wing idiocy isn’t what the country needs any more than it needs the idiocy of the right wing nuts. The only thing you are trying to stop is any chance of real solutions from happening. You keep crying that the sky is falling but you have neither the evidence to back it or ideas to improve society as a whole. In the end I can only hope that the majority in the middle gets tired of hearing clueless deluded wing nuts like you and the others on both extreme ends and tunes them out.

Are you ever going to even try answering my questions or simply spread baseless lies about me in some vain attempt to turn attention away from the truth. Your political views have even less proof than belief in God. Don’t flatter yourself. Your futile attempts to present your radical political views as reality cause me no problem. All it does is expose them for the really they are the nonsensical ravings of a deluded mind. The only people buying it are your fellow left wing nuts.

Robert after reading your attacks against religion for believing something that in your opinion has never been proven to exist. I'm curious at to how you can hold such political beliefs and feel they don't require the same degree of proof you demand from us believers regarding God?

It is getting difficult to determine whom I am addressing if both rino & (Clay) Anonymous are both going to use the name "Anonymous". Perhaps that is deliberate, in that it does make things more confused and that seems to be the goal you (both) are trying to achieve. The fact that my last comment was made on the 19th and was not posted until the 23rd, and that the comments in reply are both dated May 20th, and also not posted until the same exact time as mine (on the 23rd), shows that both of you are in control of this forum and have the added opportunity to pre-screen and to construct, and coordinate, your responses, giving you the ability to ALWAYS get the last word. It would seem that you are far more dishonest that I have already assumed and that your efforts to denigrate those who oppose you is standard practice. I suppose that having a rationale to defend, that is dependant on blind fealty to absolute truths you cannot defend rationally, makes your desperate attempts understandable. You have nothing but the choice to attack, as your standing on a foundation that is as mucky as any manure pit in existence. Both of you are pathetic.

I could have sworn that last post I made had my id. Actually if you’d answer my questions instead of resorting to name calling and lying about me you would have had the last word. I asked you simple questions and you chose instead to make a lot of paranoid accusations and claims. I have no way of knowing if that was a deliberate attempt on your part to avoid answering the question and change the focus or you actually believe that bilge you spewed. The only one displaying any blind fealty to absolute truths you cannot defend rationally is you. How exactly was asking you to back up your doctrine of liberal nonsense with support an attack? All the attacking is being done by you.

Lets go back to my original two questions “how about you elaborate on how religions are trying to reorder society to conform to their irrational beliefs? Since proof is a big deal for you try and back up that answer with some. Also could you differentiate how what you want isn’t an attempt to reorder society with your own irrational beliefs?” I asked you to provide examples for which you then gave one example abortion. After I showed why that wasn’t an irrational religious belief and pressed you on this you saw fit to make a bunch of baseless accusations and decided to cast some of them directly at me.

You are no different from the extremists on either end. You can’t support your claims so you attempt to attack the person rather than support your own views. The only foundation I’m standing on is the constitution and common sense and trust me it is far more sound then the paranoid liberal propaganda you’re standing on.


I'm taking a break from you clowns, so you can just go blow it out your Right-wing absolutist non-cake-hole, for all I care. No one is reading your crappy blog anyway, at least not anyone important (besides R-Anon and me). My trout streams are coming down and getting fishable, so I'll be busy for a while anyway. Who knows, maybe the idiot Clay will come back while I'm away, which will be just what you deserve.

Oh what will we do without your well thought out and witty posts. Maybe have an adult conversation where people can discuss and debate without resorting to name calling and personal attacks. Take as much time off as you like you won't be missed.

I wish you better luck fishing then you've had trying to sell your left wing progaganda.



Craig first turn off the caps. Next save the judgements for God.

Looks like we have a new Clay, and one who rudely shouts his absolutist rubbish all in CAPS. What CRAIG spews is not "TRUTH", it is unsupportable, absolutist in nature, and chauvinistic to the Nth degree. It is the ranting of a tiny brained zealot, and THAT is truth you can take to the bank.

At least you didn't rudely shout your absolutist athiest rubbish in all caps. You simply demonstarted that zealots come in all types.

Craig I'm hardly an expert on the Bible but I don't ever recall reading anywhere that those who don't believe in God are fools or that Christians should insult them or gloat over their damnation. I do remember something about doing unto to others as you would have then do unto you and as you judge so shall you be judged. I also seem to remember something about bring the good news to all.


Two other things you might want to turn off the caps lock and have someone semi-literate check your grammar. It would make you sound like less an uneducated fool .

(Clay) Anonymous - Still playing your same old song, I see. The only "atheist rubbish" I spout is that what you spout is , without any supporting proof, just fairy-tales you have chosen to believe because you can't utter these simple few words,...".I Don't Know.....YET!".

Psalms 14:1

Not so sure about the teaching-a-horse-to-sing thing, though....

Littel here is a small sample of the rubbish you spout “ranting of a tiny brained zealot, and THAT is truth you can take to the bank” Apparently you think you do know or you wouldn’t so vehemently attack those who do believe in God. Your logic that somehow lack of proof to your satisfaction that God exists means God doesn’t exist is flawed at best. Your opinions on religion are really nothing more than you’re your opinions. They are also every bit as absolutist as my belief in God. You can try and kid yourself that somehow logic sides with you. In fact it sides with neither of us. The difference is I have faith based on recorded history and you have nothing but flawed logic.

(Clay) Anonymous - You have "faith", which is nothing but the excuse for ignorance. It is the proof of nothing but your desire for the ridiculous to be true. As to the institutionalization of the accumulated myths and superstitions of your less that aware distant ancestors, which you call your body of recorded history, it, like your present state of awareness, is valueless, especially without a shred of proof to back up even the tiniest bit of what you believe.

Littel coming from someone who has even less to support his own beliefs your opinions of the basis of my faith are worthless. Actually at some time or another everyone acts on faith. Have you ever taken someone’s word, a doctor, lawyer, mechanic or the like on some problem or issue without any real proof besides their words? Judging from that rant you made about the corporate right I have to say your political views are likely a question of faith. They certainly aren’t base on “a shred of proof”. In fact your atheistic views are based on nothing but your personal faith. Face it at the end of the day all you can do is ad homiem attacks and appeals to ridicule in order to avoid the truth that you are standing on far less then I. You are a man who claims “not to know yet” but vehemently denies God’s existence. Calling those who do delusional and calling their history fairy tales. Both positive statements neither of which you have the slightest bit of evidence to support. You have nothing and are arguing a point you can’t win.

We all have a desire to be more than just an animal with a slightly more advanced brain, that is why we invented gods in the first place and made them so much like us. Spirituality is just an extension of that same developmental flaw that many hold onto even when they abandon religion. It is no accident that the “other-worldly” concept has become so powerful and entrenched because it has had a few million years to become ingrained in the Human psyche.

Atheists, true Atheists, have no illusions about reality because they are so invested in discovering its true nature. We do not buy into the pap we were fed as children (a wonder in and of itself considering the power of programming done in our early years). To us, there are things we haven’t yet earned the right to know because Humanity hasn’t become clever enough to uncover them yet, even though Human knowledge has increased by monumental multiples over the last 200 years. Atheism is NOT the other side of the same coin, it is a repudiation of the legitimacy of the coin itself, which by lack of proof, has no value. I have never tried to prove Atheism. To try to prove that something does not exist is logically impossible, as no positive claim is being made. Religion on the other hand, makes claims that there exists a god creature (or creatures, depending on the religion) that has a specific nature, motives, goals, rules that must be obeyed, and that has a direct impact on individual lives, despite not having (EVER) the tiniest shred of proof to back up a claim, that in logic, is a positive statement of being. The burden of proof is clearly and only, on the head of those making the positive assertion, as laid out in the immutable laws of logic. I could make the positive assertion that the third moon of the forth planet in the Alpha Proxima star system is covered with a three foot layer of French brie and then demand you prove it is not. The fact that you cannot disprove what is clearly an absurd notion, does not make you wrong, because what I ask, in that case and just like religious believers always do, is a violation of the rules of logic. An Atheist is not correct just because they are skeptical, but they are more correct than someone who believes so much based on so little, only because they want to, and are too immature to say these simple words, “I Don’t Know…..YET!”

Littel your opinions on the origin of religion while sounding quite well thought out is still nothing more than an opinion based on a set of beliefs. Your views on atheism are also really nothing more than an opinion of what atheism is to you and maybe others who share view. It really amounts to nothing more than an attempt to make your view seem as though it is grounded in logic. Unfortunately for you all it is happens to be a well worded opinion or belief devoid of even the slightest shred of evidence to support it.

Despite your claims to the contrary stating something definitely does or does not exist is a positive statement. Atheism is the other side of the coin from theism hence the name. You can keep denying it all you wish it doesn’t change reality. I have never asked you to prove atheism. I’ve never even attacked you for your atheism. Pity you can’t say the same. What I have asked you to prove the positive assertions you made. Religion is a collection of fairy tales for one. I asked for proof that those who do believe in God are delusional under the definition of what it truly means to be delusional. I pointed out the logical fact that neither of our positions can be supported solely by logic. Even if one accepts your lack of proof premise, lack of proof doesn’t prove or disprove anything in a logical argument. The only true logical position is that of the agnostic. The difference between religion and your ridiculous example is that in religion (most) there is considerable volume of works written on the subject making assertions regarding God’s existence. In your case it is the claim of one person making a Fallacy Of The General Rule. Just because you believe something to be absurd doesn’t make it so. That is the point that seems to elude you either by choice or ignorance. The ultimate irony is if you truly don’t know yet how can you know with such certainty God does not exist. Only an agnostic could honestly say that.

You can keep telling yourself and the world that your opinions are grounded in logic all you like You can put all the lipstick on the pig you like at the end of the day it’s still a pig.

I'm just a skeptic. Unlike your kind, who are standing on a sugar-coated manure pile and trying to sell it as a Bundt cake. What I believe, and logic backs it up, is that a highly structured pattern of belief, institutionalized in a world of many other institutionalized belief systems, equally unable to make the definitive case for basing their beliefs, is ludicrous. In the end it comes down to the usual crutch "faith" that has no place in a logical argument, right along side the equally valueless practice of wishing something to be so.

Bobbie pardon me for jumping into this discussion. I'm curious maybe you can answer two questions for me. How does logic back up "a highly structured pattern of belief, institutionalized in a world of many other institutionalized belief systems, equally unable to make the definitive case for basing their beliefs, is ludicrous"

Then if you manage that then explain how your highly structured pattern of belief, institutionalized in a world of many other institutionalized belief systems, equally unable to make the definitive case for basing their beliefs, is not ludicrous. I’m referring of course to your left wing political beliefs especially your satan the corporate right.

An agnostic is a skeptic. Skeptics doubt they don’t deny or ridicule either side. The purely logical position is agnostic. Using your own analogy you are on a different pile of manure trying to sell it as a Bundt cake. Your argument is built on logical fallacies. God hasn’t been proven so He doesn’t exist. Now you have a new one because there is more than one institutionalized belief system none are true. In truth you have your own belief system. If that argument were true no system including yours would be true. I realize that you want to believe that somehow logic supports you, but it doesn’t never did and never will. You can ignore or deny it but faith is guides us both. The only difference is where it’s placed. You can rationalize all you like but atheism is no more logical than theism. It is a belief system. You can keep on putting on the lipstick it’s still a pig.

rino - Don't be an ass. Logic backs up the fact of the ludicrous nature of of religious belief. At the very best, there can only be "One" possible ultimate truth, making all others patently false. Logic dictates that any one of them suffers from a total lack of supportability and that "ultimate truth" has yet to be discovered.

You really didn't give any logical argument that supports the ludicrous nature of religious belief. All you seem to be doing is stating that it’s obvious requiring no supporting evidence to validate it. Pardon me but isn't that exactly what religion does as well? You really didn’t distinguish why logic is on your side other than claiming it.

If I start with your conclusion that "ultimate truth" has yet to be discovered then logically it stands to reason that one of them could be correct or none of them could be correct. Logic can’t dictate total lack of supportability. Since supportability in this case is more subjective, The basis of your argument appears to be that lack of supportability makes them ludicrous. If that is accepted them wouldn’t the same be true of your corporate right as it also suffers from a total lack of supportability.

I’m sorry but it sure sounds like you are working on a double standard. One for things you don’t believe and another for things you do believe. You also appear to be bending logic to fit your own views.

Littel weren’t you the person who made the claim that the person making positive assertions bore the burden of proof? That negative ones can’t or don’t need to be proven? Why are the rules different for things you than anyone else? You’ve spent a lot of time attacking religion on those ground insulting anyone and everyone who you encountered. I’m simply looking to you to follow your own rules. I don’t need to show you wrong. You need to prove what you say is true. All I’m doing is asking you to prove the paranoid left wing nonsense you rant on and on about Instead you choose to let your paranoid fears view anyone not as deep on the left as you as some sort of pawn of your great satan this corporate right.. All I’m doing is resisting your attempts to pull the center to the left based on nothing but fear and unproven accusations.

This is your quote from a different are of this blog. Do you remember it you made it recently.

“What I believe, and logic backs it up, is that a highly structured pattern of belief, institutionalized in a world of many other institutionalized belief systems, equally unable to make the definitive case for basing their beliefs, is ludicrous”

I hate to break this to you but your far left nonsense fits quite nicely in this belief of yours. By all means explain why that belief of yours applies to religious beliefs but not political ones.

rino & (Clay) Anonymous - I find it interesting that people who perceive that they have a monopoly on truth (in their own minds, at any rate), seem to be working so hard to prove some kind of equivalence between the made-up fairy-tales they believe and the justifiable skepticism of those who demand proof for what they believe. You might as well try to convince us that a hot steamy bowl of cow manure would somehow taste better than a bowl of lemon pudding.

I don't see my first repsonse Bobbie. You failed to explain how logic justifies your personal opinion of the ludicrous nature of religious belief. Have you even considered that your own view is an ultimate truth. What makes your ultimate truth any more or less ludicrous than someone else’s? True only one of the truths can be correct, that makes the others incorrect not necessarily ludicrous. Logically speaking most consider any ultimate truth that differs from their own to be ludicrous. If you were actually using logic you would not say something as incredibly illogical as you just did.

I make no claims of possessing any ultimate truths. As a matter of fact, I claim that the search for ultimate truth cannot result in success because we have not evolved enough to find it YET! If you are asking me to prove the necessity for continuing the search for ultimate truth, you might as well ask me to justify breathing. Religion is ludicrous because it assumes that ultimate truth is known, and that it was discovered by our long dead illiterate ancestors, who thought the world was flat and disease was caused by demons. If that isn't ludicrous, then I don't know what could be, and if that answer isn't logical, I'll eat my hat.

Bobbie despite your claims that you possess no ultimate truths your posts contradict that assertion. Your views on religion are well below that of a skeptic. You obviously believe you have the ultimate truth. Religion is made up fairy tales. While a skeptic might doubt the existence of God they wouldn't take the extreme position you have. Atheist are not skeptics. Atheist are the opposite of theists hence the name. I’m not trying to convince you of anything except that your own arguments are not logical and are based on your own ultimate truth. Unless you have some sort of multiple personalities I am only addressing you so I don’t know why you used the term “us”.

Your argument as to why religion is ludicrous contradicts your claim of being a skeptic. If you don’t know then you can’t call another’s views of beliefs ludicrous. That would indicate you think you do know. By the way your answer isn’t logical. The fact that you can mention subjects which some of our ancestors were wrong makes everything they believed ludicrous a logical fallacy. It sounds like a fallacy of the general rule to me. Logically you can’t make a case for or against any religion. That’s what makes it such a heated issue between those with different beliefs. What you don’t seem to want to admit is your views on religion have no more basis in truth than anyone else’s.

I find it interesting that you stated " the justifiable skepticism of those who demand proof for what they believe" Why then do you attack me for my skepticism of your claims of corporate right. All I've done is ask for proof and you have provided none. Instead you attacked me personally as if your belief required no proof. You seem to have two sets of rules. One that you apply to what you believe and a different one for what you don’t believe.

rino - Logically I can make the case against any religion that doesn't measure up to the standard of possessing "Ultimate Truth". In as much as one, and only one, of the many "ultimate Truth" wannabes can be the correct one, at the very most, it is therefore logical to conclude that the mass of such beliefs are just nothing but rubbish. That leaves that one religion to make its case for being the bearer of "ultimate Truth" and to do so, it must find a way to cut loose from all the other obvious false pretenders. If such a true religion exists, it is a thing that should be treasured, revered, and encouraged, and I have the perfect solution to determine which one is the true carrier of the mantel of "ultimate truth", and which one we should grant the special privileges we now grant to so many that are nothing but obvious and logical frauds.

The government, should mandate that in ten days (should be enough time for an all powerful, all knowing, universe spanning entity, that curiously seems to have a deep and personal interest in our sex lives) , all religions must come up with proof, or the actual god, that is the issuer of said "Ultimate Truth", or immediately lose their tax free status, so that the American tax payer will no longer be forced to pay that portion of taxes that have to be made-up due to so many false "ultimate truths" not contributing to the public teat. The one religion left standing would then be able to lead us into a new glory, covered in the bright light of absolute "ultimate truth" in a new world of peace and love,...... or not. Either way Humanity would win, and the logical conclusion is that all religions will fall short, with a miss as good as a mile. You may now thank me for my brilliant solution and stop using the term logic as you defend delusional superstitionism, it just doesn't measure up.

rino I find it interesting that when forced to face the obvious fact that logic only favors agnostics Littel attempts to paint himself as justified skeptic instead of what he really is a fundamentalist atheist.

Bobbie your so called logical case against religion is basically argument from fallacy also called an argument to logic. It’s the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false. Another problem in your argument is that three of the largest Judaism, Christianity and Islam actually are based off the same God. Where they very is in the person of Jesus and how they view him. Also working against your nothing but rubbish claim is that reality that even those outside of the three mentioned have similarities in beliefs as to how people should conduct themselves and treat one another making your claim the only thing which is rubbish. It’s based not on anything logical, but your own personal opinion of religion and nothing more. Sorry you start with the answer and go from there. Not very different then the religions you attack so reverently.

Your solution is nothing more of a practical extension of your flawed logic that no proof exists for God therefor He doesn’t exist. Believers would tell you that God has already revealed himself and individuals such as yourself simply choose to deny it. The absolute proof you demand for religion doesn’t exist for many other things accepted as true. Evolution, Global Warming and its causes both lack the sort of proof you demand from religion. Your own satan the corporate right lacks that proof. The other problem with your solution is that pesky clause in the Constitution that you quote so frequently the Establishment Clause. It was not only written to keep religion out of government, but government out of religion as well. Your opinion of the contribution of religion is based solely on your prejudiced views. Considering the amount charity work done by religions, far more than any government your opinion reflects not only your inability to think objectively past your own preconceived notions about religion.

Considering how flawed your arguments are you might want to follow your own advice and stop laying claim to what you don’t possess logic. Instead of thanking you I think I’ll ask you to provide the same level of proof for your belief in the evil corporate right you discuss so frequently.

Littel no one has ever said logic could be used to defend any religion. What has been said by me is that your position also is not supported by logic. That "logical case" response to rino all but admits that your own militant athiesm isn't supported by logic. The only position which human logic supports is that of the agnostic. I realize you need to believe you are on the logical high ground. In your case that is an act of faith not fact.

Sub-cults, god/Human Hybrid abominations, infallible doctrine, absolutism based on nothing demonstrable, and beliefs based on the excuse for ignorance called Faith, do not hold a candle to the lone person who stands in the bright daylight and states, "I Don't Know....YET, but I 'm not swallowing any of your contrived, weak, made-up BS.". Religion has outlived any positive benefit it might have had in the past and today is just another weakness to be exploited by political absolutists, and a crutch for the truly mundane unimaginative dolts who have to find meaning for their lives in the lies of the past.

Bobbie "absolutism based on nothing demonstrable" is a perfect description of your evil corporate right. That's why I haven't swallowed any of your weak contrived made-up BS.

You failed to support your view that religion has outlived any positive benefit. I guess all that money that various groups spend on assistance isn't really needed anymore. Here's a link that discusses the giving habits of religious and nonreligious.

I'll save you the embarrassment of quoting the amounts of money that flow through Christian and other organizations to help others.

For someone who thinks he is a logical intelligent person you say some of the dumbest things sometime.

I could construct an equally impressive list of the atrocities, persecutions, murder, pogroms, torture, racial hatred, and the names of the most screwed up patients that have ever graced a shrinks couch, all due to the negative effects that religion has had on society, to counter all the "good works" you could lay out. You're using the good done in the name of your god creatures the same way an apologist for Hitler would defend him by bringing up his building the Autobahn, or Mussolini's draining of the swamps around Rome to end the Yellow Fever threat. The things people can be gotten to do to placate your vain, vindictive god creature (who would presumably damn you to an eternity in a lake of fire for the crime of worshipping it improperly), might cause some good, but coercion based on lies all to serve the image and power of a power hungry church, is called fraud in the real world.

Littel that last post wasn't from me. If you don't know yet then you can not dismiss any possibility. Clearly you believe you do know otherwise you really have no basis for claiming belief to be ", weak, made-up BS". You honestly have no idea how contradictory your claims are. Your sterotyping of all who believe as somehow mentally inferior to athiests is nothing short of the same misguided bigotry that has been used in the past to justify assorted forms of abuse, exploitation and discrimination. Really the whole post from July 12 is nothing more than one illogical appeal to ridicule.

As for your impressive list what you can show is a list of indviduals and societies who while claiming to be acting in the name of their religion were clearly violating its tenets. At least as far as Christianity is concerned. The only fraud here is you and your belief that somehow your intolerant angry rants prove anything except your own illogic.

When you clear away all the fallacy what you are left with is that we both act on faith. The only difference between us is where we place it.

Bobbie why is it for someone who claims to be a logical thinker and have facts you provide none?

Since you made the claim show me where in Christianity ,since I’m not familiar with other religions, it is deemed ok to commit atrocities, persecutions, murder, pogroms, torture, racial hatred. The fact that some group or individual claimed to be doing it in the name of Christianity doesn't make it true. If you can prove they actually were following it then your claim would have merit.

The usual reason for such acts are human vices which all of us even atheists share. Like any good extremist you see things not as they are but how you think they are based on your own beliefs.

There is an ever growing population and subculture of Atheist thinkers who wish to push their Atheistic world view on others and reduce religion and God to nothing more than a psychotic delusion.

These Atheists are famous for making the claim that they choose their path through intellect, logic, reason and rational thought, however, most of their beliefs are illogical, unreasonable and far from intellectual. These types of Atheists have demonstrated that they are a very closed minded group. They take every opportunity to verbally abuse and persecuting people of religion - especially Christians.

These Atheists feel they have superior knowledge and understanding about the world and humanity sighting that they are more logical, level headed, and intelligent than people of religion. Many Atheists state often and rather emphatically that they are against religion, Christianity in particular, because people follow the beliefs or their particular religion blindly without giving thought as to why. Probably, a better term for Atheism would be "Anti-Theism".

At some level most can relate to Atheism in this area, because we all have experienced the traditional, fundamental religious movements. We would even say religious abuse from the radical, fundamental religions contributes to the Atheistic mindset and that one of the causes of Atheism is the judgmental, authoritarian, traditionalist, fundamental churches that exist to simply spread their beliefs.

The first problem is, however, that Atheism makes a blanket assumption about ALL religions and teaches that once you come to a realization that religion doesn't always allow for logic, reasoning and free thought you should automatically become an Atheist. The second problem with this is that people follow Atheism and become Atheists for the exact same reason. People can follow the beliefs of Atheism blindly and, instead of thinking for themselves, become brainwashed accepting the Atheism world view without ever questioning or open mindedly considering the alternatives. Just are there are extremist, fundamentalist religious people in the world today, there are also extremist, fundamentalist Atheist.

One can be religious and logical at the same time all the while possessing freedom of thought. This site was also developed as a response to our experiences of Atheism and to those claims. It is our intention with this web site to prove that these claims are false and to prove the logical and reasoning fallacies embedded within the Atheism dogma. This site will address many issues that Atheism brings to the table. The claims of these Atheist are not only illogical and philosophical they are downright cultish.

Concerned Christian - There is a growing awareness by people who have come to Atheism, despite the generally entrenched societal attempts to keep moribund archaic thought processes alive and well in the minds of the weak and clueless, that you, as a delusionalist, cannot understand. To you, the status quo, no matter how it has been corrupted, co-opted , and historically altered to paint the false picture you have of it, must be defended against those whom have found your quaint fairy-tales and delusions that you have a monopoly on truth, do not fit within the frameworks that are necessary to make the kind of claims you make and seemingly feel compelled to force on the rest of us evangelically, or as the doctrinaire Right-wing is trying to do by unconstitutionally do using the coercive power of the state to codify your religious precepts in law.

You want the right to evangelize freely, even unto our children, and be unfettered by any responsibility to justify what to us is a despicable act akin to what a child molester would do to their bodies, that you would do to their minds.

We Atheists do not care what ridiculous piles of rubbish you may choose to believe, but when you go around beating people over the head with your superstitious beliefs, try to force women to breed against their will, infect the educational process with garbage like "Creationism", put your god creature on every unit of currency (unconstitutionally) that we all have to handle , and use your beliefs to deny basic human rights, then you are going to have to realize that blow-back is going to occur. The more you argue for the further infection of society with moribund ideas that only inhibit, or deny our abilities to deal with ever increasing world problems (especially those that involve religious breeding contests that only add to Human misery), the more we are going to point out how flawed and useless religion (of all kinds) has become. We will not be silenced and since you can't kill us anymore (in great numbers anyway), I suggest you get used to it.

Anonymous thank you very much for proving everything I said about militant cultish atheists in my post correct. You are a great example of what I was referring to in my post. A perfect example of blindly following blanket assumptions about a religions and becoming what you attribute to religions. I understand you and your lies all too well my friend.

How I don't know, but my last post came through as being from "Anonymous", as if I even had to tell you that.

Thank you for proving my points about some atheists.

Concerned Christian - All you require of us is that we keep our mouths shut (now that you are no longer allowed to kill us anymore), while you continue to sell the fraud of religious belief. You are selling a con that has been perpetrated against Human-kind for thousands of years and you are just going to have to accept that Humanity is ready to crawl out of the myth driven institutionalized superstition that you have wasted your life selling.

God is the end result of a failed search for truth by a very shallow mind, provided any search was made at all, instead of just swallowing the rubbish spoon-fed to you as a child.

Littel I doubt too many would not recognize your unique commentary,

Robert Littel – There is nothing I require from you. If you want to spread your own fictional tales and follow them blindly it causes me no problems. If you want to buy into and spread the myth of that Atheists have superior knowledge and understanding about the world and humanity sighting that they are more logical, level headed, and intelligent than people of religion be my guest.

If you were truly comfortable with your beliefs you would be able to defend them without attacking those who don’t share them. Instead you fear those with different beliefs. In truth it is you who wants to those who do not share your militant fundamentalist atheism silenced. That is why you spend more time attacking than making a logical case for your own beliefs.

I see Littel is selling his own fictional tales about atheist persecution and religious beliefs.

Concerned Christian - (Why don't you use the name you usually post under?) - When you state that I'm here , " to spread your own fictional tales and follow them blindly", you show how narrow and closed minded you really are. If you knew how difficult it was to crawl out of the fictional reality that religion has created, so that one is able to stand up unafraid and state these simple words regarding our perceptions of our existence, "I Don't Know......YET!", rather than cleave to the various piles of made-up rubbish that religion represents, then you would see which position is logically defensible, and which is pure pap. You claim something to be absolute truth, yet cannot prove ANY of it, and have the gall to demand the right to spread this unsubstantiated collection of fairy-tales in an evangelical orgy of the absurd, without anyone standing up to your stupidity. Sorry, it ain't gonna happen.

Robert Littel could do me the favor of enlightening me as to what other I post under. I have no idea what your life choice was like anymore than you can know what mine was like. What I am pretty sure of is that experience only applied to you. In truth following the path of Christianity is far more difficult in the modern world then the path of atheism. Like many atheist you seem to buy into the concept that because one is a Christian that means we have the answers of our existence. You have also bought into the myth that atheism is chosen through intellect, logic, reason and rational thought. For many that is far from the truth. Based on your conduct I suspect that is true for you as well. If you had made the choice as you claim you would spend your time singing the praises of your choice rather than attacking the choice of others. You have made many empty claims about what religion is and who religious individuals are. Your comments are far to angry and hostile to reflect someone at peace with their life. I have the same free speech rights as you or anyone else therefor I don’t require your permission to talk about my faith. You are free to try and stand up to it all you like. In the end all you can do is attack it and me verbal abuse because you have nothing better to offer.

In a world where the voices of ignorance demand the right to spread that ignorance, especially at the supposed direction of a made-up deity, or deities, as a calling they must obey, I can understand how inconvenient it is for you to have people out here (in the real world) who refuse to be quite ( or be "someone at peace with their life") rather than the thorn in the side of the power structure that has grown around the spurious belief systems which have arisen (and are demanding preeminence) in all societies.

Skepticism and doubt, are the enemies of doctrine and dogma, and if they cannot exercise brute force (a much over used weapon of repression used by religions in the past, and even now in parts of the Muslim world and by a fanatic Mormon sect in parts of Texas), then "gentle persuasion" becomes the weapon of choice. Your attempts to maintain a place on the playing fields in the world of ideas, suffers from the fact that you cannot substantiate your beliefs, and therefore requires you to attempt to deny validity to those who stand on the line of scrimmage, demanding you make the case for the monumental piles of rubbish, or admit that you are the fraud you seem to be. That you can fool yourself in to believing you are relevant, based on a superstition driven collection of institutionalized myth, is by itself, most pathetic. Religion is a hollow lie with a hard candy shell and when you cut through that shell, there is nothing.

Once again all you do is attack the beliefs of others as opposed to saying anything positive about your own. That appears to be a recurring theme for you. You also seem quite content to believe the myth that atheists possess superior knowledge and understanding about the world. You appear to be a perfect fit for the model of atheists thinkers I originally mentioned. You exhibit all the characteristics of the atheist trying to push your own views and silence believers.

There is no need for me to demand anything I already have the right to freely and openly talk about my faith under the laws of this nation regardless of what you think. I found it quite ironic that while you accuse religion and to a degree myself of trying to deny the ideas of atheism it is you who is doing all the attacking.

If you were truly comfortable with your beliefs you would be able to defend them without attacking those who don’t share them. Instead you fear those with different beliefs. In truth it is you who wants to those who do not share your militant fundamentalist atheism silenced. That is why you spend more time attacking than making a logical case for your own beliefs

Another position that is common among those who follow Atheism is their claim that there is a lack of evidence for a god. They claim that no evidence exists to prove that a god exists. The problem with their arguments is twofold.

First, strong evidence does in fact exist for the existence of God. So the claim that no evidence exists is just another way of saying they don't like the evidence that exists so they are going to deny that any evidence exists at all. They simply ignore or deny as irrelevant the evidence that people provide for God's existence. They simply discount the evidence and claim that the evidence provided isn't really evidence.

The Second problem with the claim that no evidence for God exists is that no one can logically claim that there is NO evidence for the existence of God. It is an impossible claim because no one is omniscient. We are limited beings and it is impossible for us to know all that there is to know. Because no one is omniscient then it is possible that there is evidence to prove or at lease support the existence of God. So if the existence of God is possible then Atheism can not exist, only Agnosticism.

Littel how about you prove your claims before attacking claims of others. You made several positive assertions in your last post.

" made-up deity"
"superstition driven collection of institutionalized myth"
"Religion is a hollow lie with a hard candy shell "

How about you practice what you preach and provide some proof for those claims or admit that everything you claim is nothing more than an opinion or belief lacking any logic.

CC and the others - You not only have SQUAT for proof that your god exists, you also have SQUAT that ANY god, or gods, exist, or have ever existed. On that basis alone, the Atheist position, based on the FACT you do not have SQUAT, shows that your beliefs are made-up SQUAT, and stands unassailable in logic and fact. Trying to make the Atheist position (that you have SQUAT) into a belief pattern based of a "faith" rationale, also adds up to SQUAT. The only thing we have to prove is that in all the thousands of years of fear driven rationales for existence that our ancestors could conceive (as in make up), is that religion, ANY RELIGION, does not have SQUAT, and is therefore SQUAT. I realize that CC makes the absurd claim that the existence of a god can be proven, but even he realizes that if such a thing could have been accomplished, it would already be undeniable fact, rather than the pathetic crutch that doesn't add up to SQUAT. Now go take a collective SQUAT.

Littel as always your lack of logic never ceases to amaze. You make a good effort at trying to sell the false idea that logic favors what you believe to be true. Even if one accepts your premise of lack of proof for God that does not logically make your position correct. Lack of proof of does not mean something does not exist. What you choose to deny is the FACT that you are going on faith the same as theist. The only difference between is where your faith is placed. That is why instead of making a logical rational argument for atheism you resort to appeals to ridicule and personal attacks against religion. If you were to look objectively at what you believe to be FACT you’d find it lacks the level proof you demand from those who believe in God. You come off sounding like the atheist version of our old friend Clay. Since you can’t defend your position logically you simply try and shout down anyone who questions your own blind faith.

Robert are you objectively examining evidence that is presented or are you just denying it because it isn't scientific or because it isn't what you want? Granted, objectivity is difficult for all people, but are you being as objective as you can or do you have a presupposition that God does not exist or that the miraculous cannot occur? If you have a presupposition, then you cannot objectively examine the evidence. Therefore, the presuppositions you hold regarding the miraculous may prevent you from recognizing evidence for God's existence. If so, then God becomes unknowable to you and you have forced yourself into an atheistic/agnostic position. Finally, If you assume that science can explain all phenomena then there can be no miraculous evidence ever submitted as proof. Again since it is impossible to know everything, especially those things that happen outside of our limited space-time continuum, then you are simply making an assumption which is irrelevant and illogical.

Throughout history, ANYONE who has gone looking specifically for a god, somehow has always been able to manage to find one, of some sort. Anyone who has gone looking for TRUTH, has at best , come up with more questions, or in frustration, accepted the myths and stories of their society, usually to avoid death for heresy. I don't have to take the mindset of believers , whether blind believers, or corrupted believers, seriously because their thought processes are, at their very core, corrupted by nonsense.

What would you consider specifically looking for God? If what you say is true how could we have any atheists or agnostics. I’m fairly certain at least one went on the journey you refer to and in frustration turned to where you are now. The journey for truth you mention was done by Siddhārtha Gautama and the result was none of what you claimed. Robert only you can determine what to take seriously. Objective thinking means leaving any presuppositions when looking at things. Starting out with an assumption that believers mindset are corrupted by nonsense only hurts you in the end.

Littel you make yet more illogical sweeping generalizations and back it with nothing. Maybe to you it sounds like a logical argument. Here are the problems with it. First you can't possibly know that everyone who has gone looking for God finds him unless you make the determination subjectively based on your own prejudices. Someone looking for God is also searching for truth so it actually contradicts your first statement. About the only thing you are correct on is your right not to take seriously anyone who challenges your corrupted thought processes

One can ONLY look for a god, or look for truth. You cannot lump the two together in your search (which most people never make to begin with, swallowing instead, the pap handed down to them intact when they were children), because there is no way to substantiate truth in a god, any god. In the end you have to fall back on faith and faith is the cop-out justification for believing something for with no truth can be established. There is no logic in blind faith.....EVER.

You make many one-sided assessments all of which likely stem from your own blind following of beliefs. Your very first comment that one indicates the search for God and truth to be mutually exclusive events is reflects a redisposition.. To start out objectively searching for truth one would have to leave all possibilities open wouldn’t they? If not how could it be called an objective search if one starts out eliminating possibilities that they don’t like or believe. Wouldn’t that makes your first comment illogical and irrelevant. What follows is a continuation of assumptions about people that fits nicely into your blanket assumptions about religion and religious people. What you do not see is how much your own statements blindly accept the Atheism world view without ever questioning or open mindedly considering the alternatives. Truth can be established. Not at the proof level demanded by most atheist. Of course they forget or ignore how many scientific ideas are accepted with far less than the level they demand for religion. It is also perpetuated by discounting, denying or ignoring anything presented. I completely agree that blind faith isn’t logical. Just remember that door swings both ways.

Littel maybe you could support your theory that a person can only look for God or truth? It’s a positive statement and using your own rules would require proof. What it sounds like another one of your attempts to your own dogma as established fact based on your argumentum ad nauseam that your way is the only logical path. A concept you have yet to validate with even a single logical argument. In the end you are acting on faith as much as any believer in God. So if faith is “the cop-out justification for believing something for with no truth can be established” then it applies equally to you.

In an objective search for truth, one does not carry the preconceived notion that there is, or is not a god to begin with, into the process. An objective search for truth will fail if you already have a goal in mind when you start., because anyone who goes searching for a god, always seems to find one. Truth leads where truth leads, and I have never seen truth, honestly applied, lead to a god. That path does not exist and if you believe it does, then you are DELUSIONAL.

Littel I agree an objective search for truth carries no preconceived notions. That applies equally to the preconceived notion God doesn’t exist. Your opinion regarding people searching for God is just your opinion. Saying it over and over doesn’t change that. Since you really can’t prove it true all it can ever be is your opinion which is already biased by your own beliefs. Even if one accepts that your comment regarding your observations on an honest true search true that doesn’t make your generalization that it applies in all circumstances a logical statement. I’ve never seen a new species evolve from a lower one but I don’t deny the possibility. What you are saying is anyone who doesn’t believe as you is delusional. That ends up sounding like our old friend Clay’s logic. Face it you can’t make a purely logical argument because using purely human logic you arrive at the agnostic view not yours. You and I are at opposite ends and both accept certain things as true on faith. You can blow all smoke you want or make all the insults you want. It doesn’t change the FACT that you your argument is at best an opinion and at worst illogical statements based on faith in your own atheist dogma.

Your statements seem to imply that the only way to objective search for truth is to blindly follow the atheistic world view and that anyone who does not is delusional. So what you are saying truth can only lead to your presupposed answer to the question. Forgive me for finding your response illogical, unreasonable and far from intellectual. One last question as I understand the definition of delusional it is “is a false belief held with absolute conviction despite superior evidence” Maybe you could elaborate on that superior evidence for me or explain where I have the definition wrong.

If an honest search for truth leads to god, then so be it, but to go on a search expecting to find a god makes a mockery of both the word honest and the word truth. If god is truth, then an open minded search for truth should lead there, but you know it cannot. You always have to fall back on that well worn illogical crutch called "faith", and faith is just an excuse NOT to accept the truth that you cannot show that a god exists. The Atheist position (or as you call it Atheist dogma and doctrine) is nothing more than accepting the fact that the argument for the existence of a (or any) god is just a pile of $#!+, pure and simple.

So now you want to shift to the burden of proof argument. Many atheist have argued "It is true that there are no gods because no one has proved that there is a god." This is the aspect of burden of proof. Atheists are notorious for arguing that believers in god have the sole burden of proof and they use that argument to remain atheists. For example, "Christians have the burden of proof to prove that their god exists. Until they prove it I will remain an atheist." Obviously this is a thinking error. The burden of proof is a shared burden. Atheists have as much responsibility to prove their position as Christians (or other believers) do.

Another aspect is requiring unnecessary or impossible proof. For example, "I will believe there is a god when he/she shows up at my house and performs a miracle." or "Unless god shows himself and walks on water so that I can see it happen I refuse to believe in a god."

One who has made an honest search for truth likely would not need to resort to flawed reason and ridicule to attack another point of view. One afraid to consider the possibility that their beliefs might be wrong however would. In short all you are doing is taking your earlier comments and adding the fallacy of “Argumentum ad ignorantiam” to it. It still ends up with the same predetermined conclusion that being your belief of what religion and God are based on your faith to your own doctrine. You still operate from the same basic flawed view that truth and honesty can only come if one sees things the way as you do.

Concerned Christian - Is your understanding of logic so weak that you do not understand that the burden of proof always falls on the head of the person making the positive assertion? It is impossible to prove that something that doesn't exist, in fact doesn't exist. I could state the positive assertion that the third moon of the fourth planet in the Alpha Proxima star system, is covered with a three foot layer of French Brie. You, despite the ridiculous nature of the positive statement, would not be able to prove it false. Just try to do it, you can't. The fact that I would ask you to prove something false that is so ridiculous to begin with, would be a flagrant violation of the laws of reason and logic, just like your assertion that an Atheist has to prove that your made-up god does not exist. Until you can cough up supportable PROOF that your god exists, you cannot chide Atheists for laughing in your face. They have no responsibility to validate or refute, your quaint made-up notions, because that is outside the purview of logic.


Alan Bromwell puts the argument succinctly from an atheist perspective:

“Very few atheists make any knowledge claim whatsoever. Positive propositions require substantiation, and negative claims follow without proof from a lack of substantiation. It is no more a knowledge claim for me to decline to presuppose the existence of a deity than it is for me to decline to presuppose the existence of a celestial being who proofreads Mr. Enns’ articles. We need not disprove the presence of agents for whose preexistence no falsifiable indication exists. This is a simple point. Believers have the burden of proof, no matter how much they may whine about it.”

This is half-right: believers do have a burden to make the case for God: 1 Peter 3:15-16 tells us as much. But atheists also have the burden of proof when they state the conclusion that there is no God: a reasonable conclusion needs some evidentiary support, or it's just sheer blind faith, of the kind they purport to hate. Bromwell is free to "decline to presuppose" the existence of God, fair enough. But he actively rejects as untrue the existence of God, which is a radically different thing. Instead of a celestial being, let's take the proposition "Mr. Enns has a dog." I have literally no idea is this is true. For me to declare "he does has a dog" should be on the basis of some reason or evidence. But so should the claim "he doesn't have a dog!"

Likewise, the statement "I see no evidence to support the existence of God" is a negative assumption that requires no burden of proof. But when atheists (as they routinely do) go beyond this, and declare "there is no God," they're making a positive claim, and that does require evidence.

If you were simply questioning or doubting the existence of God you would be correct in the way you are applying burden of proof. However, just as logic dictates your failure to prove me wrong doesn’t make me right; it also works the other way. Failure to prove my point does not make yours correct. You appear to want to try and use ridicule to deflect that reality with your example.

Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.

That my friend is a positive assertion putting the same burden of proof on you that place on me.

I understand that you feel a great need to make your case for the existence of a god creature, that you have invested so much of your thought processes to create, or perpetuate, having blindly signed on to what you were spoon-fed as a child, but, the convoluted contortions you are going through, to maintain what clearly violates the rules of logic, is quite pathetic. Whether through blind stupidity, or willful denial of the rules that govern the universe, the fact that you cannot grasp the simple and straight forward laws of logic, IS NOT MY FAULT! You present the logical argument of a noted Atheist, and then go into denial, not based on flaws in his thought process, but by the lack of understanding in yours. For our positions to be equivalent, I would of necessity have to subscribe to rubbish, and that my friend is the purview of the blind believer, like you.

My friend the only one doing any contortions is you. It is becoming readily apparent that you can’t logically support your views. That is why you resort to ridicule and name calling. I’ve seen it before from atheists when their illusion of logically superiority gets shattered. Consider that at no point in your response did you even attempt to make a logical argument to rebut anything I said. That really says it all about your position. Instead you chose to attack me and my knowledge of logic. If what you say is true and logical why not simply refute my comments with a logical counter argument?

While you claim to have chosen your path through intellect, logic, reason and rational thought what your responses have been illogical, unreasonable and far from intellectual. You have demonstrated the same closed mindedness you condemn religion for and take every opportunity to verbally abuse and persecuting people of religion - especially Christians. You have made no reasonable, logical intellectual argument that supports what you believe leaving me to conclude it is simply blind faith.

Consider you know absolutely nothing about me and yet presume to know how I arrived at my own faith. You have no idea of my education level yet feel qualified to comment on my knowledge of logic. For that matter you never mention any rules of logic I violated you simply make the accusations. You never stated why holding the same logical standard to that noted atheist’s statement was not logically correct or what makes it not a flaw in his thought process besides the fact it concurs with your own. I’m afraid to say that the lack of understanding is in yours, and that you do subscribe to rubbish based on your own blind faith. That is why you make no logical defense of what you believe rather you attack what others believe.

Concerned Christian - Your use of double talk, senseless repetition of rubbish and a feigned air of intellectual superiority, does not detract from the fact that in ALL the history of Humanity, that there has NEVER been the tiniest shred of proof that a god, or gods, exist, or have EVER existed. Your entire effort here, not being able to dispatch the Atheist position out of hand, (using fact and proof,) has been to try to paint the illusion that you stand on the same intellectual ground as people whose only fault is daring to tell you the hot steamy plate of crap you are dishing up, is a load of unsubstantiable made-up odoriferous delusional $#!+. If that doesn't seem polite enough for you, too bad, it is all you deserve and until you can come up with something substantive to back up the world view you would have rule us all, it is all you are going to get from people who have finally come to realize you owe us more for the privilege of having your view prevail.

I don't care where you are coming from, or what you presume to call the educational process that got you to the point of being a pompous ass, if you cannot make your case within the confines of logic (no pre-supposed invisible gods, no miracles, no thousands year old burning bushes, ad nauseum), then you have no case. Now, like most blind absolutist "true believers", you are required to come up with another long drawn out plausible sounding (at least to those equally handicapped by delusionalism) retort, reflective of the fact that people with the stupid argument always think they win when the wear out your opponent by getting the last word. Have at it, jerk.

Robert I do believe this argument a few times. It falls under the logical fallacy called Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). The fact that you seem to want to keep on repeating it ad nauseum to borrow your words doesn’t make it any less a fallacy now then the first time you mentioned it. There is no way you can say there has never been the tiniest shred of proof. It is an impossible claim because no one is omniscient. We are limited beings and it is impossible for us to know all that there is to know throughout history in the past. That statement is irrational and illogical and reflects a blind faith to your own atheist view.

I do not need to dispatch your atheist view. If you or anyone else wishes to follow the doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. That there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. That is your choice. I have said many times faith in God is a choice. I owe atheists nothing and expect nothing in return from them.

The fact that you can’t make your point without the use of insults and ridicule undermines your claims far more than anything I could write. You can call me all the names you like and do all the ridiculing you like none of it changes that truth that you have no logical argument. That is why you resort to all the irrational, illogical and bullying tactics you use. Like many extreme atheists you feel you have superior knowledge and understanding about the world and humanity believing that you are more logical, level headed, and intelligent than people of religion. Like all of them I’ve encountered before you get angered and frustrated and resort to personal attacks and ridicule when confronted with the fact that you aren’t the superior thinker you thought you were.

Remember it was you who chose to engage me. You appear to be the one concerned with winning. I realized early on this is a no win discussion since you would not be able to make any sort of logical challenge that would cause me to rethink my beliefs and you are too blindly committed to your atheist doctrine to objectively consider anything else.

All I can say is I hope you found as much peace in your choice as I have in mine.

Robert I believe forgot to put my name on my response.

Littel I see your still arguing your warped logic. Where in the world did you study logic? Your whole argument is based on a fallacy. First there is no way you could possibly know what has happened throughout human history. Even if you could that would not make your argument logically correct. It would only support the Agnostic view. The only person using double tall and senseless repetition of rubbish and a feigned air of intellectual superiority has always been you. I will give you this no one is better at you in making ad hominem attacks and appeals to ridicule and bringing up irrelevant ideas in order to distract from the topic at hand.

Concerned Christian - If your choice makes you find peace in your blind delusional ignorance, I'll gladly settle for a state of mind that involves open minded curiosity, even if it leads to turmoil and pain, because it is at least, honest and real.

Robert my friend you operate with far too many flawed notions. The first being I believe anything blindly. The second is use of the word delusional. Just doing a quick check of Wikipedia I found the following definition for the word delusion. "a false belief held with absolute conviction despite superior evidence". Maybe you could educate me with that superior evidence that would make what I believe delusional. I’ve left that challenge for many an atheist before you and so far none have managed to produce it. Most use the same illogical arguments you have used and when pushed usually end up resorting to personal attacks. The final flaw in what you said is the belief that my "open minded curiosity" is limited or nonexistence. To be sure there are close minded Christians just as there are close minded atheists. However, you can prove no link between faith and “open minded curiosity”. I wouldn’t be surprised if the only correct statement you made was that your choice has led to “turmoil and pain”. For your sake I hope that is not the case. However, only you can know the truth to that.

Concerned Christian - You are doing whatever you have to to defend a rationale that has never been shown to exist, and doing it from a perspective, (lacking ANYTHING else) called "Faith". Faith is blind and an excuse to believe what you cannot substantiate by any other means, like reason, logic, facts, proof, or anything that disproves the notion that your Christianity is anything except the manifestation through time of a minor cult which sprang from a wellspring of any number of earlier cults, that caught on in the minds if superstitious and highly suggestible ignorant peasants. If you have nothing that needs defending, then why are you going through so many spurious contortions to defend it?

Robert you operate from the assumption that I need to defend my faith to you or anyone else. My beliefs require no defense. You are free to accept or reject them. The only way they could even remotely require defense would be the presentation of a superior set of beliefs based on a reason and logic. So far no one including you has offered anything remotely close. I’m not defending my beliefs I’m challenging you to think about yours and to provide the superior evidence that makes my faith delusional. All you have done is repeat what has already been shown to be a logical fallacy and give what is really your own rationale that has no basis in reason, logic, facts proof or anything that supports your notion of atheism or Christianity. You seem to forget it was you who chose to debate this subject with me. It is you who seems to want to keep this going as well.

I will wrap this up with two questions. You claimed in an earlier post that you would settle for an “open minded curiosity, even if it leads to turmoil and pain, because it is at least, honest and real.” If that is a true statement how can you dismiss the possibility of God so easily? How can you honestly say “never been shown to exist” unless you have the knowledge of all past human history as it actually happened?

Bobby I found it a bit hypocritical that while you assail someone else's inability to use reason, logic, facts, proof you offer none of those to support your opinion on what Christianity is. Of course you showed the same inability when going on about the corporate elitist right too. Why do you operate under different rules for what you believe then you expect from others to support what they believe?

Concerned Christian--also known as Anonymouse--aka--Ravensfan--morphing every minute--be concerned for the mental health of this egg to nymph to dragonfly type. Same stupidity--different names.
R Anon

rino - I'm not standing on, and defending, a manure pile, be it your absolutist religious delusions, or your equally inflexible political ideology. I have the capacity to admit when I am wrong, you do not have the capacity to admit what you believe might be wrong for the rest of us. There is room in the Humanist world for your kind to believe whatever foolish thing you wish, as long as you do not force it on the rest of us. In your narrow absolutist world, the rest of us are heretics and if we complain, blasphemers. I will fight that on any grounds, night and day.

Bobby the only person standing on and in that manure pile is you. Claiming you have the ability to admit your're wrong is a joke since at no time have you even considered that possibilty in your political views despite you inability to prove your claims and reliance on the same sort of faith you attack Christians over. Your as equally entrenched in your views on religion. Fight on any ground you wish. Maybe some day you could try doing it on logic and reason instead of emotional personal attacks and ridicule.

I'm still waiting on that proof for the corporate right (your great satan).

R Anon,

Why the need for ridicule and accusations? Robert has already made similar accusations. I thank you for at least mentioning the monikers you believe I have posted under. Was there a purpose beyond ridicule and an attempt to change the focus? You revealed nothing of your own beliefs and views. Maybe you could enlighten me in them as well as support your ridicule with something.

rino - For who you are and what you stand for, the truth about the corporate Right.

The president makes a solid threat to attack the sweet deal that the corporate Right and the ultra-rich, at the very top, have engineered for themselves, and the Right-wing propaganda machine comes out screaming (in unison) that the administration is engaging in “class warfare”. The truth is that out and out class warfare has been ongoing for several decades, without the general public even realizing it. While the public watched their soaps, NASCAR, and the other distractions that have become central focus in the lives of the apolitical citizenry, while they have been distracted by every new shiny object corporate America can shove into their hands (curiously all manufactured in China), the corporate Right has consolidated political power (by buying up all options) and creating a myth driven rationale (disseminated through outlets like FOX [faux] News and sold by hate radio blowhards, like Limbaugh and Beck) and codified in brown-shirt organizations like the Tea Party. Their plan, and it is in full implementation, marshaling ignorance, fear and blind stupid patriotic jingoism , is to use The Constitution and everything it is supposed to stand for, to bring our experiment in representative democracy to an end. The destruction, castration, or marginalizing, of the real press, the transfer of wealth upward (erasing the middle-class), the ending of fair wages (union busting), and reducing the function of government, by stripping it of functions that serve individuals, to only providing a military, to be used both as a tool to control other nations resources, and as a force to keep the rest of us in line with their desires (using the police power they will control) in a country where “consumer rights” supplant citizens rights, IS ALREADY HAPPENING!

The government is the only tool the people (the “WE THE PEOPLE” of constitutional fame) have, has been under assault by the forces of obscene wealth (which they mean to keep and get more of), making it an already corrupted entity, that we must seize back. The ignorant must be taught, the lazy kicked in the butt, and the pigs doing this (the Koch Brothers, et al, the McConnells, the Boehners) to us, must be exposed for what they are, thrown out of office, and/or prosecuted for their attempted overthrow of The Constitution. If we do not wake up and do this, the Corporate States of America will become the only reality and our noble experiment in freedom will be over. It is time to throw the corporate owned Republicans out of office and then purge the Democrats that have also prostituted themselves to corporate largess. Once that has occurred, it is time to break the back of large corporations, that have grown so large that they no longer believe in the American dream, proven by how willing they are to ship your jobs overseas and by their willingness to let the country fail, all to consolidate their power and wealth. It is now or never, and the corporate Right realizes this and is acting on it while they can get away with it. All the mechanisms for this plutocratic coup de etat are in place, and they must move before they are found out by the mass of society. Because they mean to win, and because they will go to any ends to achieve it (even if it means throwing us into deep economic and societal collapse), we must stop them now, or we will never get the chance again.

Bobby you have quite an imagination. You’ve bought hook line and sinker into the myths and fairy tales of the extreme left. You are obviously one of those who believe that anyone who doesn’t see things in your little left wing world is either too dumb to notice or an agent of the evil corporate right. There was just one problem with that rant. It lacked anything to support it. It comes off as trying to scare people to your view, the same tactic you decry the extreme right for using. Your incessant use of insults and ridicule are designed to keep anyone from noticing that your entire claim lacks substance. The problem with what you say is things are never that absolute as you claim.

As for the President’s plan to raise taxes let’s call it what it is a ploy designed to force the Republicans into a position of looking like they are protecting the rich at the expense of the middle class and poor. Actually it’s a good strategy and will likely help reverse his own decline in popularity. While I actually agree we need to raise taxes that alone won’t fix the mess we’ve spent ourselves in. That was what made the President’s move class warfare. Had he simply talked about the increase and pointed out the obvious that the rich can absorb the burden more easy it would have been a fair statement. However, he invoked the battle cry of liberal wack jobs like you that somehow the rich aren’t paying their share. I guess you missed the fact check that exposed the incorrect comments the President made. While I agree with increasing the taxes everyone including you needs to be prepared for the fallout which will be slowing of the economy. You can’t take money out of the private sector without that happening. You see in reality both sides are right and both are wrong to some degree. Only a blind fool buys into the complete story the right and left spin.

Intelligent, logical and reasonable voters don’t fall for the fear mongering exaggerations and in some cases outright lies of either extreme. They look at all the facts all the pluses and minuses before they take a stand. Clearly that isn’t you.

Robert I realize you didn't address that response to me. I do have questions if you don't mind. First I admire your passion and zeal for fighting for your beliefs. However, that post really lacked two things, proof and solutions. Could you provide some more specific examples to support what you claim is happening. When did this class warfare start? How has it been conducted and by whom? Who is this corporate right and how are they able to work in the kind of unison it would require to pull off what you have claimed? In my experience ignorance and fear has been used by both major parties in this country to push their agenda. How could any group bring the democracy to its end. Wouldn’t that require control not only of Federal Executive and Legislative Branches but also control of enough State Executives & Legislatures to amend the Constitution in a way to do what you claimed? Are you claiming that military and police would be used to do it? If so how?
Also could you provide some practical solutions that you believe should be taken to turn the situation around. You used a lot of insults and ridicule. What changes do you suggest to better educate people and does that education include looking objectively at all sides and not simply one side. How do anyone prove the claims you made regarding specific legislatures or others? How does breaking the backs of corporations provide any benefit? Your ideas sound remarkable close to socialism. I don’t say that to imply anything negative. I just don’t see such ideas working because the human species tends to be greedy by nature. In truth socialism runs much closer to the teachings of Christ then many of us Christians would want to admit. The only way to do what you sound like you want done is to destroy the very Constitution and representative democracy you claim to want to protect and replace with some sort of dictatorship of socialism. If I am wrong in that assumption by all means clarify for me.

rino - As a corporate supporting operative just doing your job, you have hit all the salient attack strategies taught at corporate run seminars, designed to disarm people who are pointing out what is becoming patently obvious to the rest of society. The Right, your Right, has accumulated 1/2 of all wealth into the pockets of about 4000 people (proudly, but stupidly, touted by "Forbes" magazine, and why should they lie?), which represents POWER, absolute power that we are now seeing being used by the very wealthy (Koch brothers, and others), to make the government so weak that they will have no one to stop them from exercising prerogatives to maximise their profits, with the least governmental regulation (like safety standards, product liability, environmental laws [global warming, pollution] , unions, and any other number of benefits they can garner ) that would hinder their operations. They have invested billions to buy outright, the entire Republican Party (which has bowed to every wish they have requested) and as much of the Democratic Party as they can. This is not subject to debate, as we have spent the last few years watching them in action, which is why people like you are here to discredit anyone who dares to tell what you clearly want hidden, which is the truth.

You, and the sock puppet, Concerned Christian (why don't you just stick to one name so we will all know whose $#!+ pile is being flung at us?), are both using corporate seminar tactics, created by Lee Atwater (thankfully now dead) and refined by Karen Hughes (G.W. Bush's spin whore), to paint your opponent as being the unreasonable one, teetering on the brink of insanity, if you can swing that perception.

The Right has been waging a slow and programmed plan to take over the legal system (as evidenced by the John Ashcroft program to replace Justice Dept. employees with "Right Thinking" graduates from institutions like Regent University and ORU, (with court cases pending against the people who ran this program, but slowed up by people already in place). The Supreme Court has been corrupted to serve the corporate Right, as evidenced by bad decisions like the inappropriately named "Citizens United" abomination. The litany of crimes being perpetrated by the corporate Right, would fill a stack of books, and that is why it is so hard to get the mass of society focused of what you and your corporate masters are planning for us. Every major newspaper in the country has a corporate whore (some more than one evidently) like you to moderate the discussion, attack their enemies and perpetuate the myth that the status quo hasn't been remolded to serve the culture of uber wealth, that now threatens the very meaning of what we have always thought it meant to be an American. You are playing the same game here that others are playing elsewhere, using the same exact game plan and all toward the same end, to keep the lid on while the would be plutocrats put the finishing touches on their plan to end our noble experiment in representative democracy. I'm afraid you are going to have to do more, like kill us, and that is the rub, because that too is, because of what is at stake, in the corporate game plan. They mean to win at all costs, even if it costs the lives of people who, in their book do not count, because they are not rich.

Bobbie you really are delusional aren't you. Your figures are abit inflated but that's to be expected a left wingnut like you. Your claims have zero basis in fact and are the a joke. You rail on people who believe in God demanding the prove their beliefs while you rant on and on about something you offer no proof for.

Sorry fto bust your bubble I only post under one id. From what I can tell CC is far to civil to a wack job like you.

The truth is you and those who think like you are just as big a problem as the far right. My hope is someday the moderates wake up and tell both you and your fellow left wing extremists and their equally moronic counterparts on the far right to sit down and shut up so move the nation forward.

Bobby you are a deluded paranoid left wing extremist. Instead of even attempting to make an intelligent repsonse you go off on a tirade of personal attacks and ridicule.

Why does your simple paranoid mind assume that am posting under different id's? Like everything else you spout is is a pile of bs.

This is no game Bobby. This is about having serious dialouge with people interested in putting forth solutions. It's extremist on both sides, like you that have screwed up this country.

Run along and go occupy Wall Street or Baltimore or some other place and tell yourself you have some notion of what is going on.

I accused Concerned Christian of being a sock puppet for a poster who usually in the past, has gone by another name. Pretending to be a centrist, on your part, is laughable and just another ploy being used by corporate plants, in these discussions, to paint anyone who makes a critical and plausible attack against those you are prostituting yourself to serve, as being radical. You try to couch your posts in reasonable sounding language, play the innocent victim of attack, and then, falling back on the crowd pleasing notion that an atheist is somehow evil because they don't swallow the mountain of superstition and myth that falsely gives meaning to life that will, whether you like it or not, end in the void of non-existence.

I proudly stand on my last post and thank the variables of existence, that I am not someone like you.

Post a comment

All comments must be approved by the blog author. Please do not resubmit comments if they do not immediately appear. You are not required to use your full name when posting, but you should use a real e-mail address. Comments may be republished in print, but we will not publish your e-mail address. Our full Terms of Service are available here.

Verification (needed to reduce spam):

About Matthew Hay Brown
Matthew Hay Brown writes and blogs about faith and values in public and private life for The Baltimore Sun. A former Washington correspondent for the newspaper, he has long written about the intersection of religion and politics. He has reported from Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Middle East, traveling most recently to Syria and Jordan to write about the Iraqi refugee crisis.

Most Recent Comments
Baltimore Sun coverage
Religion in the news
Charm City Current
Stay connected