Should Organized Religion be Outlawed?

[FreeTraveler]

It strikes me that organized religion offers no FACTUAL distinction from any other con game, and should probably be considered fraud in a rational society.

From a libertarian/ZAP standpoint, doesn't promising someone a special afterlife for donations in the present life constitute fraud, just as selling bogus gold stocks or any other con game would?

[angelatc]

What a stupid post.

[Banana]

What a stupid post.

+1.



I think OP forgot that Stalin did just that, and the result was quite disastrous. State-enforced atheism is just as bad, if not worse, as state-enforced religion is.

Everyone has a right to associate with a private organization.

[FreeTraveler]

What a stupid post.

I'll retract it if you can tell me where organized religion and con games differ IN FACT. I'm really curious about how religious people reconcile faith and logic; I personally can't see how it can be done.

How about attacking the logic of the post, instead of the poster?

[Banana]

I'll retract it if you can tell me where organized religion and con games differ IN FACT. I'm really curious about how religious people reconcile faith and logic; I personally can't see how it can be done.

The problem is not whether they can reconcile faith with logic, but whether you are willing to make room for the possibility. See: Presuppositions. Furthermore, this is still ignoring the fact that anyone is free to do as they want with their life.

[acptulsa]

I've never actually seen or heard of a church where they say give us money or go to hell. Most let you in for free, and ask voluntary donations to keep services going and/or do chartiable activities.

Heard that in the Dark Ages the Catholics sold time out from "purgatory", but then that church did all sorts of crap during the Dark Ages. I can see where a Southern Baptist background might leave you bitter about churches in general, but one bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch. There are plenty of Christian churches that actually support tolerance.

P.S. In fairness, one or two of these are even Southern Baptist. Just don't let the Southern Baptist Conference know about them--I don't want them to get into trouble!

[FreeTraveler]

The problem is not whether they can reconcile faith with logic, but whether you are willing to make room for the possibility. See: Presuppositions. Furthermore, this is still ignoring the fact that anyone is free to do as they want with their life.

Yes, anyone can do what they want with their life. However, police forces and courts regularly pursue fraud convictions if they determine the operation was fraudulent, WHETHER OR NOT those who were conned are co-complaintants.

The courts have declared for the state in related issues concerning the Branch Davidians, and now we have the ongoing case in Texas.

Apparently separation of church and state does not preclude persecution of the church. Where's the great leap in logic from what's happening in Texas today, and the state deciding that the Southern Baptists are not selling a "legitimate" religion, and therefore are prosecutable for fraud?

[acptulsa]

Where's the great leap in logic from what's happening in Texas today, and the state deciding that the Southern Baptists are not selling a "legitimate" religion, and therefore are prosecutable for fraud?

Fifteen year old girls are legally considered children. That's the leap in logic in a nutshell.

[Alex Libman]

The only thing that should be outlawed is use of force against other people's life, liberty, or property. The centralized justice system is probably also needed to enforce contracts and such, but not much more than that.

If fools join a foolish religion, shame on them. If fools raise their children to be fools, shame on them as well. But it's not for the government to guide them in spiritual and philosophical matters. If you allow that, the government will inevitably use that power for its own end: ever-expanding tyranny.

[Kraig]

I'll retract it if you can tell me where organized religion and con games differ IN FACT. I'm really curious about how religious people reconcile faith and logic; I personally can't see how it can be done.

How about attacking the logic of the post, instead of the poster?

Sure, I'll bite.

Every single church I have been to has asked for cash, voluntarily, as a way to help the church survive and therefore continue it's ministries. These ministries usually include things such as food drives, working with orphaned children to improve their standard of living, sending missionaries to 3rd world countries to build houses and churches, as well as provide free healthcare services for people who have absolutely no access to them. Of course they teach people about the Bible during these interactions, but that is rarely if ever the isolated goal. Christian churches generally try to promote their message through charity work, and provide a substantial percentage of the charity work done across the globe because of that.

However you may feel about the message of the Bible, if someone teaches that you have to give money to ensure your good standing with God, or to ensure you will go to heaven, they are NOT teaching the Bible - that is a fact.

Salvation, as according to the Bible, is entirely free, and cannot be purchased at any price.

Your entire argument seems to be based entirely off of a false presumption, that is why no one is willing to take it seriously.

[AutoDas]

I'm atheist and I say no. It's their freedom. No one is holding a gun to their heads and forcing them to believe unlike what you are proposing. How can a government even define an "organized religion" without breaking the Establishment Clause?

[Fox McCloud]

What a stupid post.

+10,000

*gives thumbs up*

this is a post just waiting to stir up trouble.

[Kraig]

It strikes me that organized religion offers no FACTUAL distinction from any other con game, and should probably be considered fraud in a rational society.

From a libertarian/ZAP standpoint, doesn't promising someone a special afterlife for donations in the present life constitute fraud, just as selling bogus gold stocks or any other con game would?

Oh yeah, did you forget that the good Dr. Paul is a Christian? Why are you even here?

[MS0453]

Since religion (like all beliefs) is, at its core, a matter of freedom of conscience and mind, you have nothing to stand up.

There is no purpose behind this thread, except to stir shit up. I'm glad to see everyones coming together to denounce this. I'd love to know why everyones going overboard with these religion threads lately.

[Gadsden Flag]

Isn't one of the major planks of libertarianism the idea that a person or group or people need not be arrested until they physically harm another person?

Sheesh.

[driller80545]

Since religion (like all beliefs) is, at its core, a matter of freedom of conscience and mind, you have nothing to stand up.

There is no purpose behind this thread, except to stir shit up. I'm glad to see everyones coming together to denounce this. I'd love to know why everyones going overboard with these religion threads lately.

Because what is happening in Texas right now is religious persecution. The religious establishment has kidnapped and destroyed hundreds of families because they choose to follow a different set of values. All because some girl that nobody can find claims that some guy who is not actually there sexually abused her and made her get married. Its bogus with strong similarities to Waco. Christianity is famous for its intolerance of other cultures values and morals. My God is God and your God isn't. The funny thing is that the people being persecuted here believe in the same God.

Frankly, I'm am surprised that the people in these forums are not more upset by the government's destruction of these families in their efforts to force their own set of values on them.

[yongrel]

What a waste of bytes. The internet is worse for having this thread on it.

[sophocles07]

I've never actually seen or heard of a church where they say give us money or go to hell. Most let you in for free, and ask voluntary donations to keep services going and/or do chartiable activities.

This exists though. Watch one of the evangelist stations like TBN.


I think that though religion is—in my opinion—a fraud-con game, you can’t outlaw it.

Analogy: say there is a girl (or guy) acting as if she (he) is attracted/in love with a guy (or girl), but really is not, and is purposely using this pose as a way to get money or gifts. Now, strictly, this is a fraudulent activity. She/He is posing/faking attraction to another (offering love, etc.) in order to get things in return. It is a kind of emotional fraud/con game (which, consequently, is what a lot of religion is as I see it). But would you want to outlaw it? Fraud cannot be controlled by the government; the CONSUMER (be it of religion, significant other, or bread) is responsible for getting enlightened on the choices. You can’t expect laws or businesses (and religion is a business) to be responsible unless HELD responsible by the consumers.

Anyway: outlawing religion would have the contrary effect of the one intended.

[amy31416]

Not only can't it be outlawed, it obviously shouldn't be. Silly.

[H Roark]

There is only one organization posing as a religion that requires payment for salvation in which I am aware of, and that is the Church of $cientology. There is big international movement going on right now to counter $cientology, read about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Chanology

BTW Kraig, great post.

[Theocrat]

It strikes me that organized religion offers no FACTUAL distinction from any other con game, and should probably be considered fraud in a rational society.

From a libertarian/ZAP standpoint, doesn't promising someone a special afterlife for donations in the present life constitute fraud, just as selling bogus gold stocks or any other con game would?

Yes, the religion of "Atheism" should be outlawed. Any rational society which embraces "Atheism" will get exactly what Germany got under the Nazi Regime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_regime) or what France received during the "Reign of Terror" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror), among other "atheistic" atrocities in politics and society.

[yongrel]

Yes, the religion of "Atheism" should be outlawed. Any rational society which embraces "Atheism" will get exactly what Germany got under the Nazi Regime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_regime) or what France received during the "Reign of Terror" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror), among other "atheistic" atrocities in politics and society.

Oh shut the hell up. Have you not seen all of the atheists and agnostics defending religion in this thread?

Go back to your hidey-hole.

[Theocrat]

Oh shut the hell up. Have you not seen all of the atheists and agnostics defending religion in this thread?

Go back to your hidey-hole.

I was just answering the thread starter's original post. There's no reason for you to get upset at the truth.

[yongrel]

I was just answering the thread starter's original post. There's no reason for you to get upset at the truth.

Let's not turn this into a game of who has killed the most people. The fact of the matter is that there are homicidal fucks of every race, religion, and creed. To claim otherwise is to misrepresent the truth in order to promote an agenda.

So let's just agree that the government should not ban organized religion, and be done with this thread.

[sratiug]

I was just answering the thread starter's original post. There's no reason for you to get upset at the truth.

The History Channel has had video of Churches in Nazi Germany promoting Hitler to their congregations. Eerily similar to the church videos recently here with cardboard figures of Bush.

[yongrel]

The History Channel has had video of Churches in Nazi Germany promoting Hitler to their congregations. Eerily similar to the church videos recently here with cardboard figures of Bush.

Oh cut it out. Any argument that invokes Hitler loses automatically due to the total lack of originality or intellectual effort.

This isn't a Red Sox vs. Yankees game. People are fucking crazy, and are occasionally fond of killing each other, often in large numbers. It's that simple. Everyone kills everyone.

[Theocrat]

Let's not turn this into a game of who has killed the most people. The fact of the matter is that there are homicidal fucks of every race, religion, and creed. To claim otherwise is to misrepresent the truth in order to promote an agenda.

So let's just agree that the government should not ban organized religion, and be done with this thread.

I think "Atheism" should be rejected as the official religion of any civil government (often hidden under the guise of "neutrality" or "egalitarianism"). It is dangerous, and usually societies which fully embrace "Atheism" eventually end up driving away those of theistic (particularly Christian theistic) faiths. "Atheism" as an organized state religion should be banned. That's all I'm saying.

If individuals choose to believe and live as "atheists," then I say let the Church deal with them, not the State. I believe our country is slowly but surely embracing key elements of the "Atheistic" faith (taking prayer and Bible reading out of schools, legalizing murder [abortion], and removing the Ten Commandments from historic buildings and sites, to be specific). That needs to be outlawed, or else our constitutional republic, as understood and framed by our Founders, will fall.

So, I agree and disagree with you, yongrel, depending on the context of what you're talking about.

[amy31416]

If individuals choose to believe and live as "atheists," then I say let the Church deal with them, not the State. I believe our country is slowly but surely embracing key elements of the "Atheistic" faith (taking prayer and Bible reading out of schools, legalizing murder [abortion], and removing the Ten Commandments from historic buildings and sites, to be specific). That needs to be outlawed, or else our constitutional republic, as understood and framed by our Founders, will fall.


"Let the Church deal with them?" What exactly are you promoting?

[sophocles07]

Yes, the religion of "Atheism" should be outlawed. Any rational society which embraces "Atheism" will get exactly what Germany got under the Nazi Regime or what France received during the "Reign of Terror", among other "atheistic" atrocities in politics and society.

Really, does atheism require a participation fee? What are you talking about?



If individuals choose to believe and live as "atheists," then I say let the Church deal with them, not the State.

What the hell does that mean?


I believe our country is slowly but surely embracing key elements of the "Atheistic" faith (taking prayer and Bible reading out of schools, legalizing murder [abortion], and removing the Ten Commandments from historic buildings and sites, to be specific). That needs to be outlawed, or else our constitutional republic, as understood and framed by our Founders, will fall.

I would hope so (about religion/not abortion).

[yongrel]

I think "Atheism" should be rejected as the official religion of any civil government (often hidden under the guise of "neutrality" or "egalitarianism"). It is dangerous, and usually societies which fully embrace "Atheism" eventually end up driving away those of theistic (particularly Christian theistic) faiths. "Atheism" as an organized state religion should be banned. That's all I'm saying.

If individuals choose to believe and live as "atheists," then I say let the Church deal with them, not the State. I believe our country is slowly but surely embracing key elements of the "Atheistic" faith (taking prayer and Bible reading out of schools, legalizing murder [abortion], and removing the Ten Commandments from historic buildings and sites, to be specific). That needs to be outlawed, or else our constitutional republic, as understood and framed by our Founders, will fall.

So, I agree and disagree with you, yongrel, depending on the context of what you're talking about.

Theocrat, this has been said and repeated so many times for you: atheism is not a faith. It is an absence of faith. Someone much smarter than me once said that calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.

I am an atheist in that I do not believe there is a God. That statement alone requires no faith whatsoever. None.

At this juncture, I feel it important to point out the distinction between atheism and secularism. You seem to combine the two seemlessly, when that is simply not the case. Atheism is an absence of belief in God. Secularism is an absence of religion from government. Atheism is an individual matter, while secularism is an institutional one. Secularism simply says that religion should not have an influence over the affairs of the state, and that the state should not have influence in the affairs of religion. It says nothing about whether there is or isn't a God.

[Kludge]

Can we just delete this entire thread....? It's embarrassing and blurs the distinction between libertarians and Neocons.

[Theocrat]

"Let the Church deal with them?" What exactly are you promoting?

I mean the Church should minister to the "atheist" community through good works, such as prayer, public forum discussions/debates, writing books, and maintaining Christian charity towards them. The Church should not stone "atheists" or anything like that, but should be longsuffering towards them as creatures of God.

[yongrel]

Can we just delete this entire thread....? It's embarrassing and blurs the distinction between libertarians and Neocons.

Agreed. It was a stupid thread to begin with. Shame on the OP for being intentionally antagonistic.

[Theocrat]

Theocrat, this has been said and repeated so many times for you: atheism is not a faith. It is an absence of faith. Someone much smarter than me once said that calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.

I am an atheist in that I do not believe there is a God. That statement alone requires no faith whatsoever. None.

At this juncture, I feel it important to point out the distinction between atheism and secularism. You seem to combine the two seemlessly, when that is simply not the case. Atheism is an absence of belief in God. Secularism is an absence of religion from government. Atheism is an individual matter, while secularism is an institutional one. Secularism simply says that religion should not have an influence over the affairs of the state, and that the state should not have influence in the affairs of religion. It says nothing about whether there is or isn't a God.

You said you do not believe there is a God. That's faith, my friend.

Secularism and "atheism" both have the same beliefs, namely, that theistic religion should have nothing to do with individuals nor institutions. They're both the same thing. "Atheism" is the belief there is no God, and secularism (secluding God) is the action of "atheistic" beliefs.

[sophocles07]

Theocrat, this has been said and repeated so many times for you: atheism is not a faith. It is an absence of faith. Someone much smarter than me once said that calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.

I am an atheist in that I do not believe there is a God. That statement alone requires no faith whatsoever. None.

This is something I don’t think the extremists of religion understand. ATHEISM or AGNOSTICISM can be many things. It is NOT a doctrine of belief like Christianity, or Hinduism, or Islam, or whatever. It says ONE THING: I do not believe; or I don’t know. It doesn’t set a standard of ritual, belief-system, doctrine, etc.

Analogy: the color RED is a color, it is not a cherry, it is not a rose, it is not a cardinal. These are the varying manifestations of the color red. Similarly, atheists or agnostics can be many things. They do not all believe one thing.

Contrary to this: an oak is an oak, Strict Catholics believe ONE thing—they do not manifest themselves in the multifarious way that the color red does.

Point: shut the fuck up, you are REACHING, handjob not available, boy.

[yongrel]

You said you do not believe there is a God. That's faith, my friend.

Secularism and "atheism" both have the same beliefs, namely, that theistic religion should have nothing to do with individuals nor institutions. They're both the same thing. "Atheism" is the belief, and secularism (secluding God) is the action of "atheistic" beliefs.

Thank you for ignoring everything I wrote. It really encourages me to invest the effort required to compose a thoughtful and reasonable reply.

[Kludge]

You said you do not believe there is a God. That's faith, my friend.

Secularism and "atheism" both have the same beliefs, namely, that theistic religion should have nothing to do with individuals nor institutions. They're both the same thing. "Atheism" is the belief, and secularism (secluding God) is the action of "atheistic" beliefs.

Faith is the belief in something without evidence. There is no evidence of God. As such, no faith is required to not believe in a God.

Secularism is a belief that Government would be tainted, irrational, and more easily corrupted if religion were allowed within it. Atheists may or may not believe it, since the labels aren't relevant to each other.

[Theocrat]

Thank you for ignoring everything I wrote. It really encourages me to invest the effort required to compose a thoughtful and reasonable reply.

I guess you and I just differ on our definitions, yongrel. I'm not ignoring your posts; I find them to be rather engaging.

[sophocles07]

I guess you and I just differ on our definitions, yongrel. I'm not ignoring your posts; I find them to be rather engaging.

How cordial monstar.

[amy31416]

Didn't the majority of us atheists/agnostics say "no" organized religion should not be outlawed?

You can't outlaw thoughts or belief systems, no matter what they are. This discussion should be over.

[Corydoras]

I am an atheist in that I do not believe there is a God. That statement alone requires no faith whatsoever. None.

Would be curious to know what you think faith is such that you think you don't need it to be an atheist.

You see, a doctor who looks at tissue biopsies under a microscope never reports that the patient has no cancer. Instead, the doctor reports that no neoplasm is recognized.

But you seem to think that you can contemplate the universe and conclude that there is no deity. That's a pretty big leap of faith.

It would be logical instead to say that you observe no evidence of a deity-- and that you decide to live your life consistent with your observations. That would be a non-faith-based approach.

[familydog]

What a stupid post.

+100

I'm waiting for the "should organized sports be banned" threads.

It's just another thread to cause up trouble. It leads to the same discussion as every other religious vs. non religious thread. We might as well merge them all togather. No one would tell the difference.

[Kludge]

Would be curious to know what you think faith is such that you think you don't need it to be an atheist.

You see, a doctor who looks at tissue biopsies under a microscope never reports that the patient has no cancer. Instead, the doctor reports that no neoplasm is recognized.

But you seem to think that you can contemplate the universe and conclude that there is no deity. That's a pretty big leap of faith.

It would be logical instead to say that you observe no evidence of a deity-- and that you decide to live your life consistent with your observations. That would be a non-faith-based approach.


To know something to be true, you need evidence. Without hard evidence of God, it's easy to conclude he doesn't exist.

Even if God did exist, there are blaring discrepancies in the bible, and I'd NEVER worship "Word" written by imperfect and corruptible humans.

[sophocles07]

But you seem to think that you can contemplate the universe and conclude that there is no deity. That's a pretty big leap of faith.

Do you believe there is a large, half-lion/half-pig orange bulldog-giraffe god?

I am just as skeptical of the above as I am of the Judeo-Christian god. Is that a leap of faith?

PROVE IT.

[yongrel]

I guess you and I just differ on our definitions, yongrel. I'm not ignoring your posts; I find them to be rather engaging.

I explained to you that atheism is not a faith. It's is simply an absence of belief. You're reply was, "No, it's faith," with no explanation why. This is the multisyllabic equivalent of saying "Nuh-uh."

Not believing in something like God is not a faith. It requires no faith for me to say "I do not believe that Shiva exists." Nor does it require any faith for you to say, "I do not believe that Patrick Swayze starred in Top Gun."

Absence of faith is, by definition, not faith. I understand why you think it so, since many atheists are passionate to a degree that rivals many evangelicals, but they still are not men of faith. They are loud men without faith.

[Theocrat]

Faith is the belief in something without evidence. There is no evidence of God. As such, no faith is required to not believe in a God.

You're wrong, Kludge. Biblical faith is based on evidence. If there were no evidences for God, I would not believe in Him. How can you then say there is no evidence of God? Do you know everything, Kludge? Have you exhausted all of the resources and research in the entire universe which would absolutely conclude that there is no iota of evidence for God's existence? I think not.


Secularism is a belief that Government would be tainted, irrational, and more easily corrupted if religion were allowed within it. Atheists may or may not believe it, since the labels aren't relevant to each other.

Agreed, and Christianity is the belief that government would be tainted, irrational, and more easily corrupted if antichristian religions such as "atheism" were allowed within it (Psalm 14:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2014:1;&version=9;)). Now, how do you decide who's right and who's wrong?

[Kludge]

You're wrong, Kludge. Biblical faith is based on evidence. If there were no evidences for God, I would not believe in Him. How can you then say there is no evidence of God? Do you know everything, Kludge? Have you exhausted all of the resources and research in the entire universe which would absolutely conclude that there is no iota of evidence for God's existence? I think not.

Fine, toss me some evidence that God exists (Nothing from the bible can be considered evidence as it was written by humans).


Agreed, and Christianity is the belief that government would be tainted, irrational, and more easily corrupted if antichristian religions such as "atheism" were allowed within it (Psalm 14:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2014:1;&version=9;)). Now, how do you decide who's right and who's wrong?

"Atheism" shouldn't be allowed to influence the decisions of government, I agree. If it were, it'd be reasonable to declare that no religion be allowed practice.

[Corydoras]

Do you believe there is a large, half-lion/half-pig orange bulldog-giraffe god?

I am just as skeptical of the above as I am of the Judeo-Christian god. Is that a leap of faith?

PROVE IT.


No, skepticism is not faith. Of course it's not a leap of faith to be skeptical.

But concluding that they don't exist based on your not finding any evidence that they exist-- that's faith.

[sophocles07]

You're wrong, Kludge. Biblical faith is based on evidence. If there were no evidences for God, I would not believe in Him. How can you then say there is no evidence of God? Do you know everything, Kludge? Have you exhausted all of the resources and research in the entire universe which would absolutely conclude that there is no iota of evidence for God's existence? I think not.

What evidence? Do you believe Muhammad ascended to Heaven?

A book in itself is not evidence, hotdog.

AND: NO: no one can or will “exhaust” the evidence; why do YOU claim to know not only GOD but the LAW of GOD?


Agreed, and Christianity is the belief that government would be tainted, irrational, and more easily corrupted if antichristian religions such as "atheism" were allowed within it (Psalm 14:1). Now, how do you decide who's right and who's wrong?

Muh Brain, yon baptist.

[yongrel]

You're wrong, Kludge. Biblical faith is based on evidence. If there were no evidences for God, I would not believe in Him. How can you then say there is no evidence of God? Do you know everything, Kludge? Have you exhausted all of the resources and research in the entire universe which would absolutely conclude that there is no iota of evidence for God's existence? I think not.

How do you know that there is no 27 foot tall hot pocket that rapes racoons while singing Neil Diamond's "Sweet Caroline" and blinking morse code? Do you know everything, Theocrat? Have you exhausted all of the resources and research in the entire universe which would absolutely conclude that there is no iota of evidence for the Racoon Raping Crooning Hot Pocket's existence? I think not.


Agreed, and Christianity is the belief that government would be tainted, irrational, and more easily corrupted if antichristian religions such as "atheism" were allowed within it (Psalm 14:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2014:1;&version=9;)). Now, how do you decide who's right and who's wrong?

Arguments are a lot easier when you completely change the meaning of words central to the discussion, huh? Next time we talk about baseball, the word "pitcher" will mean the homeless guy who pissed on the right field wall last winter when the grounds crew wasn't looking. Okay? Cool.

[Theocrat]

I explained to you that atheism is not a faith. It's is simply an absence of belief. You're reply was, "No, it's faith," with no explanation why. This is the multisyllabic equivalent of saying "Nuh-uh."

Not believing in something like God is not a faith. It requires no faith for me to say "I do not believe that Shiva exists." Nor does it require any faith for you to say, "I do not believe that Patrick Swayze starred in Top Gun."

Absence of faith is, by definition, not faith. I understand why you think it so, since many atheists are passionate to a degree that rivals many evangelicals, but they still are not men of faith. They are loud men without faith.

You affirmed that you believe there is no God, which implies that you don't know for sure. Maybe God does exist, but you've not found the evidence yet, so for the time being, you have faith that He doesn't exist. That's the whole point. You exhibit faith in the possibility that God doesn't exist, even when you don't possess absolute knowledge to justify that claim as fully true.

[Kludge]

How do you know that there is no 27 foot tall hot pocket that rapes racoons while singing Neil Diamond's "Sweet Caroline" and blinking morse code?

Alex Jones already tried to declare this truth. He quickly had his disinformation debunked on Youtube.

[Corydoras]

To know something to be true, you need evidence. Without hard evidence of God, it's easy to conclude he doesn't exist.

It would be easy to conclude God doesn't exist, and it would be a great logical mistake. It would be as grave a mistake as a doctor looking at a patient's tissue slides and concluding that the patent is cancer-free.

A doctor can reasonably say to a patient, "Since our tests have shown no evidence of cancer, we do not need to treat you for cancer." But the doctor cannot say, "The biopsies prove you do not have cancer."

[sophocles07]

No, skepticism is not faith. Of course it's not a leap of faith to be skeptical.

But concluding that they don't exist based on your not finding any evidence that they exist-- that's faith.

As Richard Dawkins says: YOU are an atheist in relation to Apollo; that's all we mean. It's not saying there is NO god--as even Dawkins has said, no scientist would claim to KNOW that--but saying that there IS a god when there isn't is ridiculous.

There are varying forms of atheism. I think most would say "There is NO proof of a god; therefore I have no belief[--considering something real--]that this [or that] is REAL." We're making this too ridiculous. It's like saying: "you dont think the stapler controls the universe??????? Do you have PROOF that the universe ISNT ruled by a stapler?" Atheist: "Uh..." Stapler-theist: "Well then, motherfucker, you obviously DONT KNOW THEN, HUh?"

It's ludicrous. It's not a matter of faith. Show me somethin', boys. buhsides the sto-ree of thuh Bible.

How do Christians justify the Book of Job, by the way? (Just as a curiosity? I'd like to know. I've been studying this lately in Hebrew, and find it far from the normal Christian interpretation I have been taught.)

[Theocrat]

Fine, toss me some evidence that God exists (Nothing from the bible can be considered evidence as it was written by humans).

(Roflmao) Do you see how biased your statement is? "Nothing from the Bible can be considered evidence as it was written by humans." Why? Because you say so?! I guess by your logic then we can't believe any book to be true or give us evidence of anything because they were written by men, too.

Your statement is like a person who refuses to use a microscope as proof to show that cells exist because the microscope was invented by men. How ridiculous and irrational is that? The Bible claims to be a supernatural book, unlike any other. One must come to the Bible with that presupposition, or he will gain nothing from it indeed. Can you do that, O "freethinker"?

[Carehn]

I don't know how this post came to be on this site? Its like saying free speech should be outlawed because people could be coned. Don't we all want less laws or do some of us just want to be taken care of.

Science and God are the same thing.

This Thread Belongs in the trash.

[yongrel]

Science and God are the same thing.

Well no, not really. But I agree with you otherwise.

[Kludge]

It would be easy to conclude God doesn't exist, and it would be a great logical mistake. It would be as grave a mistake as a doctor looking at a patient's tissue slides and concluding that the patent is cancer-free.

A doctor can reasonably say to a patient, "Since our tests have shown no evidence of cancer, we do not need to treat you for cancer." But the doctor cannot say, "The biopsies prove you do not have cancer."

I've looked at more then one slide on "God". My Grandpa was a pastor who's church I helped in and attended for over 5 years. After that I attended a number of other Protestant churches. None of them PROVED anything, which I realized when I started to understand skepticism.

[Theocrat]

How do you know that there is no 27 foot tall hot pocket that rapes racoons while singing Neil Diamond's "Sweet Caroline" and blinking morse code? Do you know everything, Theocrat? Have you exhausted all of the resources and research in the entire universe which would absolutely conclude that there is no iota of evidence for the Racoon Raping Crooning Hot Pocket's existence? I think not.

Yes. I have absolute 100% proof that there is no "27 foot tall hot pocket that rapes racoons while singing Neil Diamond's "Sweet Caroline" and blinking morse code." I have God's own personal revelation and testimony which debunks that myth, namely, the Bible. That's how I know. I may not know everything, but I know someone Who does.


Arguments are a lot easier when you completely change the meaning of words central to the discussion, huh? Next time we talk about baseball, the word "pitcher" will mean the homeless guy who pissed on the right field wall last winter when the grounds crew wasn't looking. Okay? Cool.

You can do that all you want, but you aren't the final arbiter of language. God is.

[Corydoras]

As Richard Dawkins says: YOU are an atheist in relation to Apollo; that's all we mean. It's not saying there is NO god--as even Dawkins has said, no scientist would claim to KNOW that--but saying that there IS a god when there isn't is ridiculous.

Actually, much Christianity is equivocal when it comes to whether to be atheist or agnostic toward entities such as Apollo. You do understand what the phrase "God of gods" means, right?


There are varying forms of atheism. I think most would say "There is NO proof of a god; therefore I have no belief[--considering something real--]that this [or that] is REAL." We're making this too ridiculous. It's like saying: "you dont think the stapler controls the universe??????? Do you have PROOF that the universe ISNT ruled by a stapler?" Atheist: "Uh..." Stapler-theist: "Well then, motherfucker, you obviously DONT KNOW THEN, HUh?"

It is perfectly logical to say "I have no evidence that a stapler rules the universe, and so I am going to live as if there is no stapler-deity." It is a leap of faith and it is not logical to say "There is no stapler-deity."

"I have no belief that X is real" is not the same thing as saying "There is no deity."



How do Christians justify the Book of Job, by the way? (Just as a curiosity? I'd like to know. I've been studying this lately in Hebrew, and find it far from the normal Christian interpretation I have been taught.)

Oh look! A puppy!
:rolleyes:

[Kludge]

(Roflmao) Do you see how biased your statement is? "Nothing from the Bible can be considered evidence as it was written by humans." Why? Because you say so?! I guess by your logic then we can't believe any book to be true or give us evidence of anything because they were written by men, too.

Your statement is like a person who refuses to use a microscope as proof to show that cells exist because the microscope was invented by men. How ridiculous and irrational is that? The Bible claims to be a supernatural book, unlike any other. One must come to the Bible with that presupposition, or he will gain nothing from it indeed. Can you do that, O "freethinker"?

I believe no book -except those of Science- to be true, but opinions either obvious or subtly applied in a disgusting style of manipulation.

Microscopes can be scientifically proven as accurate. I suppose you could argue that nothing is true since truth is subjective but... That'd be difficult to refute.

[Corydoras]

Yes. I have absolute 100% proof that there is no "27 foot tall hot pocket that rapes racoons while singing Neil Diamond's "Sweet Caroline" and blinking morse code." I have God's own personal revelation and testimony which debunks that myth, namely, the Bible. That's how I know. I may not know everything, but I know someone Who does.

That's not proof. That's faith in God's knowledge as revealed through your understanding of the Bible.

[Carehn]

Well no, not really. But I agree with you otherwise.

and ill defend to the death your will to agree other wise against me... or something.

[Theocrat]

I believe no book -except those of Science- to be true, but opinions either obvious or subtly applied in a disgusting style of manipulation.

Now you're just being arbitrary. Those science books were written by humans, so why do you intend on believing them? As a matter of fact, why would you believe anything you post on these forums because they were written by a human, too?

[Corydoras]

Microscopes can be scientifically proven as accurate. I suppose you could argue that nothing is true since truth is subjective but... That'd be difficult to refute.

Issues such as what constitutes scientific proof, and what the relationship is between truth and subjectivity-- these are difficult but not at all unapproachable. The field of knowledge that deals with these topics is, of course, academic philosophy.

Before proving a microscope accurate, there needs to be some explanation of what constitutes accuracy and what constitutes proof.

Before asserting that truth is subjective, there needs to be some explanation of what subjectivity means and an explanation of how that relates, if at all, to truth.

And so on. It takes time, but it is definitely worthwhile.

[Kludge]

Now you're just being arbitrary. Those science books were written by humans, so why do you intend on believing them? As a matter of fact, why would you believe anything you post on these forums because they were written by a human, too?

I can replicate the results of an experiment. I accept them as true.

I cannot part the Red Sea and no one has proven it possible (duplicable), so, I can't accept it true that anyone has the ability to.

Abraham Lincoln may or may not have signed the Emancipation Proclamation, it doesn't matter, and can't be proven.

I believe almost nothing on the forums to be true, but opinions, which is why I'm "flippant" in my writings.

[sophocles07]

Actually, much Christianity is equivocal when it comes to whether to be atheist or agnostic toward entities such as Apollo. You do understand what the phrase "God of gods" means, right?

Then why do you say atheism is a faith?


It is perfectly logical to say "I have no evidence that a stapler rules the universe, and so I am going to live as if there is no stapler-deity." It is a leap of faith and it is not logical to say "There is no stapler-deity."

"I have no belief that X is real" is not the same thing as saying "There is no deity."

NO: it is saying “There is no proof, therefore I have no belief.” There is nothing to contradict that belief. Show me something, I’ll change it. CHRISTIANS will not.


Oh look! A puppy!

Nice, moron.

[Theocrat]

I can replicate the results of an experiment. I accept them as true.

I cannot part the Red Sea and no one has proven it possible (duplicable), so, I can't accept it true that anyone has the ability to.

Abraham Lincoln may or may not have signed the Emancipation Proclamation, it doesn't matter, and can't be proven.

I believe almost nothing on the forums to be true, but opinions, which is why I'm "flippant" in my writings.

So, if you can't do something, then it's not true. That makes sense. :rolleyes: Hmmm, where do I begin...

[sophocles07]

where do I begin...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869630813464694890

(from someone on this board)

[Corydoras]

Then why do you say atheism is a faith?
It does not rely on empirical proof.



NO: it is saying “There is no proof, therefore I have no belief.” There is nothing to contradict that belief.
That's correct, you believe there is no evidence for the existence of a god.



Nice, moron.
A discussion of theodicy can go into its own thread. Raising theodicy in a discussion that's basically epistemology sure looks like an attempt at a distraction.

[Corydoras]

I cannot part the Red Sea and no one has proven it possible (duplicable), so, I can't accept it true that anyone has the ability to.

Abraham Lincoln may or may not have signed the Emancipation Proclamation, it doesn't matter, and can't be proven.

I believe almost nothing on the forums to be true, but opinions, which is why I'm "flippant" in my writings.


So-- to clarify-- basically, to you, history is just a matter of opinion?

[Kludge]

So-- to clarify-- basically, to you, history is just a matter of opinion?

Historical "facts" are "debunked" daily.

[sophocles07]

It does not rely on empirical proof

No, it does though; it relies on WHAT YOU SHOW ME. Show me something, I’ll believe. I believe in things THERE: not NOT THERE.


That's correct, you believe there is no evidence for the existence of a god.

That is, SHOW ME something, I’ll believe. I wouldn’t really even say “belief”: do you “BELIEVE” that 4 times 9 is ? 36t’s it COULD equal 56, but you’ve got to PROVE IT. Not CLAIM IT.


A discussion of theodicy can go into its own thread. Raising theodicy in a discussion that's basically epistemology sure looks like an attempt at a distraction.


I’ll be glad to discuss this in another thread...IF YOU CAN PRESENT ME WITH A REASON to start another thread. I wasn’t suggesting this as a distraction, far from it—I enjoy discussion of this subject; I am asking is there ANY answer to the idea of JOB as impatient, that does not flout the normal Christian idea. I consider it out of the norm. I could be wrong (I could be wrong, I’ve seen nothing to justify the book of Job beyond literature). BEYOND LITERATURE: I’ve never seen anything to justify the book of Job beyond the idea that DEATH IS END. NOTHING. That’s my concern. Show me something; I want PARTICULAR responses, not general, “thats wut i thunk, dawg” threads.”

GIVE me something. I want some form of rational, CAPTITALISTICALLY LOGICAL thought—not “do this fur that” etc. I want something Ron Paul would not have to do a leg-split to justify. That is: 1) I’d like a spiritual explanation; if not, I’m fine with you just 2) organize my money and foreign policy.

[Corydoras]

Historical "facts" are "debunked" daily.

Of course. But I think of Santayana's observation that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it, and I think that not taking history seriously would be a mistake. Not that you have yet urged such a thing.

[Theocrat]

No, it does though; it relies on WHAT YOU SHOW ME. Show me something, I’ll believe. I believe in things THERE: not NOT THERE.



That is, SHOW ME something, I’ll believe. I wouldn’t really even say “belief”: do you “BELIEVE” that 4 times 9 is ? 36t’s it COULD equal 56, but you’ve got to PROVE IT. Not CLAIM IT.



I’ll be glad to discuss this in another thread...IF YOU CAN PRESENT ME WITH A REASON to start another thread. I wasn’t suggesting this as a distraction, far from it—I enjoy discussion of this subject; I am asking is there ANY answer to the idea of JOB as impatient, that does not flout the normal Christian idea. I consider it out of the norm. I could be wrong (I could be wrong, I’ve seen nothing to justify the book of Job beyond literature). BEYOND LITERATURE: I’ve never seen anything to justify the book of Job beyond the idea that DEATH IS END. NOTHING. That’s my concern. Show me something; I want PARTICULAR responses, not general, “thats wut i thunk, dawg” threads.”

GIVE me something. I want some form of rational, CAPTITALISTICALLY LOGICAL thought—not “do this fur that” etc. I want something Ron Paul would not have to do a leg-split to justify. That is: 1) I’d like a spiritual explanation; if not, I’m fine with you just 2) organize my money and foreign policy.

You've been given proofs of God's existence, you're just not persuaded of those proofs. That's your problem. You need to check your own heart and mind to see what it is that makes it so difficult for you to believe. Let me give you a hint. It begins with "S," and it rhymes with "tin" (three letters).

[sophocles07]

Of course. But I think of Santayana's observation that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it, and I think that not taking history seriously would be a mistake. Not that you have yet urged such a thing.

Can you post Santayan's whole quote? I'd like to see the whole context. (BTW : I've just started reading Santayana, and can't be sure of him; I'm reading his work on Platonic ethics right now.)

[sophocles07]

You've been given proofs of God's existence, you're just not persuaded of those proofs. That's your problem. You need to check your own heart and mind to see what it is that makes it so difficult for you to believe. Let me give you a hint. It begins with "S," and it rhymes with "tin" (three letters).

Good answer, savior. That]'s surely what our understanding lord Jesus would say.

Do you believe in a literal Hell (serious question by the way, I'm curious)?

[Theocrat]

Do you believe in a literal Hell (serious question by the way, I'm curious)?

Yes.

[sophocles07]

Yes.

What do the flames look like?

[Theocrat]

What do the flames look like?

I'm sure they resemble flames as we know them today. Otherwise, they wouldn't be called "flames".

[sophocles07]

I'm sure they resemble flames as we know them today. Otherwise, they wouldn't be called "flames".

So, really, your flames look very much like the flames painted by most other painters; that is, they look like fire=as in, they look like very other representatvie of fire, etc ever painted= pretty simple, t dawg

[Theocrat]

So, really, your flames look very much like the flames painted by most other painters; that is, they look like fire=as in, they look like very other representatvie of fire, etc ever painted= pretty simple, t dawg

I'm simply stating that the flames of hell are similar to flames we would observe here on Earth, as in natural fires and such. Why do you ask?

[sophocles07]

I'm simply stating that the flames of hell are similar to flames we would observe here on Earth, as in natural fires and such. Why do you ask?

C














U






R















I











os















i




















t













eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[Corydoras]

Can you post Santayan's whole quote? I'd like to see the whole context. (BTW : I've just started reading Santayana, and can't be sure of him; I'm reading his work on Platonic ethics right now.)

Oh, I haven't read Santayana, I was just referring to the idea that when people don't learn something from history, they keep knocking their heads on the same low door lintel. Remember Schwarzkopf talking about how he had read histories of battles in the general region of Iraq region and how he credited historical knowledge for the Americans' ability to overrun Saddam's forces?

I do think it's important for people to understand that, for example, there was a time when the United States did well without an income tax. But that requires them to understand that the past does in fact have some bearing on the present, which means that history, for all its flaws, does matter, and deeply.


What I see online is:

Where does Santayana write "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"?

The oft-quoted and commonly misunderstood line appears in Reason in Common Sense, the first volume of the five-volume Life of Reason. In the 1905 Charles Scribner's Sons edition, it is found on page 284. In context, he is making a psychological point, that is, he is observing something about the development of human intelligence. But it is often employed (in various paraphrased forms) for sociological or political purposes, quite possibly in ways that are not consistent with Santayana's views. In other words, he was often skeptical that a social or political group could learn or progress in the way implied or advocated by those who appropriate the quotation.
http://www.iupui.edu/~santedit/askedition.html

[Kludge]

Of course. But I think of Santayana's observation that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it, and I think that not taking history seriously would be a mistake. Not that you have yet urged such a thing.

I think we should analyze what philosophies were being aboded by in history, how they arrived at the conclusions they did and if it was wrong/right.

From there we can form our own subjective truth as to how we should live our lives, which will hopefully be an improvement over before analyzing history.

[sophocles07]

Oh, I haven't read Santayana, I was just referring to the idea that when people don't learn something from history, they keep knocking their heads on the same low door lintel. Remember Schwarzkopf talking about how he had read histories of battles in the general region of Iraq region and how he credited historical knowledge for the Americans' ability to overrun Saddam's forces?

I do think it's important for people to understand that, for example, there was a time when the United States did well without an income tax. But that requires them to understand that the past does in fact have some bearing on the present, which means that history, for all its flaws, does matter, and deeply.

Is this a rule against the policy? I dont understand??????????

[Corydoras]

No, it does though; it relies on WHAT YOU SHOW ME. Show me something, I’ll believe.

You do understand, right, that the reason why nobody is going to show you God is that anybody who claims he can is a charlatan or worse? If you don't look for yourself, and look widely and very patiently and thoroughly, you're not going to find.

And then if you don't find, all you can logically say is that you have no evidence for the existence of God-- and you can keep searching as long as you like.


I believe in things THERE: not NOT THERE.

If you do not believe that God exists and also you do not believe that God does not exist, then you are an agnostic and not an atheist.

But if you believe, based on the absence of evidence for the existence of God, that therefore God does not exist, then you are a person of faith.



do you “BELIEVE” that 4 times 9 is ? 36t’s it COULD equal 56, but you’ve got to PROVE IT. Not CLAIM IT.

In a sloppy, diagrammatic way, I believe that 4 x 9 = 36. Proof? I'm simply not going to read the Principia Mathematica-- I choose not to. What goes on in that book is proof at the level you're demanding. Bertrand Russell worked so hard on the proof that 1 + 1 = 2 that reportedly he said his mind was never quite the same again. No, drawing a 4 x 9 grid and counting all the dots in the box does not constitute proof.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_mathematica



I’ll be glad to discuss this in another thread...IF YOU CAN PRESENT ME WITH A REASON to start another thread. I wasn’t suggesting this as a distraction, far from it—I enjoy discussion of this subject

The reason NOT to use THIS thread to discuss Job is that it's way too messy to have a discussion of theodicy and epistemology in the same thread.

A reason to use another thread? That's up to you-- you're the one with the questions about Job. The questions based on a cultural context whose presuppositions, such as the existence of God, you do not accept. Whatever.
:)

[Corydoras]

I think we should analyze what philosophies were being aboded by in history, how they arrived at the conclusions they did and if it was wrong/right.

From there we can form our own subjective truth as to how we should live our lives, which will hopefully be an improvement over before analyzing history.


First, you cannot, by your own admission, trust any historical account of the philosophies people used in the past. This is obviously a problem.

Second, you probably should think very carefully about what you mean by "subjective truth," because it could be argued that if it is subjective, it is not truth at all; or it could be argued that there is no truth, only subjectivity.

[Corydoras]

Is this a rule against the policy? I dont understand??????????

Is what a rule against what policy? I don't understand, either. Could you please expand on that?
:confused:

[LibertyEagle]

Yes, anyone can do what they want with their life. However, police forces and courts regularly pursue fraud convictions if they determine the operation was fraudulent, WHETHER OR NOT those who were conned are co-complaintants.

The courts have declared for the state in related issues concerning the Branch Davidians, and now we have the ongoing case in Texas.

Apparently separation of church and state does not preclude persecution of the church. Where's the great leap in logic from what's happening in Texas today, and the state deciding that the Southern Baptists are not selling a "legitimate" religion, and therefore are prosecutable for fraud?

You have GOT to be kidding. Who gives a flip what the courts decided about the Branch Davidians? What was done to the BD was flat out wrong. I cannot even believe you are arguing for this. Just because someone doesn't walk or talk the way I do, does not preclude them having the right to live the way they choose, unless they infringe upon my liberty.



Should Organized Religion be Outlawed?

You're arguing for more government control?

[Kludge]

First, you cannot, by your own admission, trust any historical account of the philosophies people used in the past. This is obviously a problem.

Second, you probably should think very carefully about what you mean by "subjective truth," because it could be argued that if it is subjective, it is not truth at all; or it could be argued that there is no truth, only subjectivity.


Fine, we should analyze philosophies of the past and present, even if not actually believed in by the historical figures purported to believe in them.

Truth is anything that can be replicated by the individual who's trying to replicate. We've already established that I'm God - so if I can do it, it's true. Of course, everyone else is then their own God and if they can replicate it - it's true... for them.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

+1.



I think OP forgot that Stalin did just that, and the result was quite disastrous. State-enforced atheism is just as bad, if not worse, as state-enforced religion is.

Everyone has a right to associate with a private organization.

I don't know. The defeat of the 1,000 man Tibet army by a 1,000,000 man Chinese army was glorious. What an incredible victory over religion by atheism!

[Dr.3D]

Should Organized Religion be Outlawed?

Perhaps a better question should be, 'Should religious intolerance be outlawed?"

It is the intolerance that causes all of the problems.

Those who are opposed to one religion (or supposed lack there of) apart from their own and wish to impose their beliefs on others are the ones who are causing all the problems.

[Kade]

Organized religion is worthless and destructive to the goals of humanity.

I however, would never support the outlawing of any expression of thought or congregation of people, or strip the right to worship god as people see fit, period. I don't see a reason for this poll, and I would like to know who the 3 people who voted yes were...

[acptulsa]

Our overloaded canon of goofy laws needs subtractions. The only addition I could roust myself to fight for would be a ban on non-official, non-elective, non-binding polls.

[LibertyOfOne]

Book Of Mark

15 He said to them, "Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature.
16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.
17 These signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will drive out demons, they will speak new languages.
18 They will pick up serpents (with their hands), and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not harm them. They will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."
19 So then the Lord Jesus, after he spoke to them, was taken up into heaven and took his seat at the right hand of God.
20 But they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the word through accompanying signs.) 3 (http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/mark/mark16.htm#foot3)

So going by what Jesus said if you have faith snake venom or poison should not hurt you.
Clearly this book is full of myths.

[Dr.3D]

Book Of Mark

15 He said to them, "Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature.
16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.
17 These signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will drive out demons, they will speak new languages.
18 They will pick up serpents (with their hands), and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not harm them. They will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."
19 So then the Lord Jesus, after he spoke to them, was taken up into heaven and took his seat at the right hand of God.
20 But they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the word through accompanying signs.) 3 (http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/mark/mark16.htm#foot3)

So going by what Jesus said if you have faith snake venom or poison should not hurt you.
Clearly this book is full of myths.

And what did your post here have to do with anything in this thread?
Again just another opinion being expressed without anybody asking for it.

[LibertyOfOne]

And what did your post here have to do with anything in this thread?
Again just another opinion being expressed without anybody asking for it.

In response to Theocrat's claim that the bible is evidence of a god.

[Dr.3D]

In response to Theocrat's claim that the bible is evidence of a god.

That claim Theocrat made has nothing to do with this thread either.

[LibertyOfOne]

That claim Theocrat made has nothing to do with this thread either.

Everyone agrees that there should be no action taken, other than the thread originator. So the point of the thread has already been dealt with. Theocrat has already hijacked the thread anyways. Well maybe like a handful of other people agree that something should be done, but the overwhelming majority don't.

[Dr.3D]

Everyone agrees that there should be no action taken, other than the thread originator. So the point of the thread has already been dealt with. Theocrat has already hijacked the thread anyways. Well maybe like a handful of other people agree that something should be done, but the overwhelming majority don't.

Theocrat just likes to argue.

[Banana]

http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/1158/sighbl6.jpg

[ronpaulhawaii]

Please vote in this poll

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=133397

Thanks, sorry to interrupt ;)

[acptulsa]

Thanks, sorry to interrupt ;)

You're apologizing for that?!

[Strike-Fighter]

*looks at thread title*

Oh, right, that's why we lost