Dear Religion, While you were debating what chicken sandwiches were okay to eat,...
= new reply since forum marked as read
It would make a lot more sense. 
x 1,000,000
Last edited Mon Aug 6, 2012, 06:19 PM - Edit history (1)
Sikhs, Rastafarians and Unitarian Universalists are supporting, en masse,
their local Chick-fil-A to "protest" the gay-friendly boycott.
x 1,000,000,000
So I doubt they'll be worrying about Chicken sandwiches, either.
Personally, I think it's all good as long as it's used for good.
And if a person is an agnostic or atheist then there's always that wonderful connection we share as fellow human beings on this life journey.
+ 
+ x 10Is that the best you've got? 
It doesn't work, of course, because If you truly questioned that
word in this context, you would have mentioned it long before now. 
Sorry, bro, but the only one with twisted knickers here is you, and that's
because I pointed out the OBVIOUS bias and emotionality in your
unsupported assertion that "All religion is poison", which in turn, of course,
shows you to be just as logic-free and emotion-based as the non-atheists
to whom you feel so superior.
...okee-dokee sport...I'm done with you!! 
Last edited Wed Aug 8, 2012, 11:38 PM - Edit history (2)
Now you stepped in it...I knew you would
Check my posts, truetwit, I never ONCE said
I was a "believer" in anything you're spouting.
I'm AGNOSTIC and my dispute with you is based
entirely on that "certainty" that neither you,
nor the best contemporary scientist can honestly assert.
Buh bye...and thanks for playing!
That's the best you've got? 
"Mitt the Twit", anyone?
One could hardly call you a "wit"
so it seems "twit" will have to do!
...
and if you actually read the post, you'd see I never
claimed religion to be "based on empirical fact", nor
did anyone limit the subject of "religion" to
those of "the Middle East". That, in fact,
was part and parcel of the argument.
Thanks for joining in and adding to the evidence
of bigotry posing as "reason".
DUUUUHHHHHH...
...because that makes a boatload of sense...
At least YOU think it's a substitute for substance.
It seems you're confused. I'm not the one
making an unprovable assertion like
"All religion is poison" and claiming it as "fact". 
Jealousy?...Power lust?
"Unprovable" is correct and to debate that indicates you
know little about science and/or critical thinking,
so maybe your "arse" is doing your thinking, I don't know.
In addition, didn't' you just tell me you were "done with me"?
It seems you're not, but having made my point, I am definitely
done with you....Buh bye.
P.S. You might want to remember Spellcheck, bro.
because what you actually wrote was "are" instead of "arse".
...thought not....
How perfect that you'd notice my spelling error on the word "arse"...projecting much?
greed as a motive for evil, not to mention jealousy,
sadism, power lust, etc.
Sorry, kids..You can try and blame religion for all the
world's ills, but you'll come up short when names like
"Hitler" and "Stalin" come into play.
Neither was exactly "devout" but they managed
to murder close to a quarter billion, just the same.
of not only KNOWING not only the numbers slaughtered throughout
world history, but their motives as well, it's all just a guess.
As to Stalin's killings, you might want to debate the numerous
sources, including many already posted and discussed here on DU
who give him credit for figures closer to 20 million.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/searchresults.html?q=stalin+killed+20+million&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&sa=Search%21&domains=democraticunderground.com&client=pub-7805397860504090&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A336699%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BFORID%3A11&hl=en
Then it's you who are "sadly mistaken".
Not really. I could give a flip about chicken, and love the landing.
But then again, I do realize we often perceive other demographics only in such ways as to better validate our own biases...
I suppose that's perfect too.
Much as you and Spock might wish it,
everything in life is not a matter of "reason"
Is emotion "reason"?...Is art "reason"?
Sorry, but arguing for the confirmation of
a strictly empirical, logical existence has its limits.
...
Thanks for proving my point!
and even "intellect" -- certainly as the last would apply to art, is quite subjective.
"if god exists, then science certainly could prove it".
Then you are apparently at odds with the very scientists
you admire and in whom you profess to "believe".
Sorry, Scoot, even confirmed atheists here won't touch that.
It's when we try to explain them to other people that things can get sticky.
"At least we can agree, there's no objective evidence for god. Any god, goddesses, demons, devils, angels, djinn, ancestor-spirits, unicorns, fairies, gorgons, hippocampi, or "grey" aliens"
No, I never claimed there was and neither do most. You're doing some interesting thinking, though,
and I would just add a few thoughts regarding your "supporting evidence" and "logic" theories.
In regard to the existence of unicorns, there is no evidence they exist, and there's is no evidence they do NOT exist, either.
The first thing you have to know is that you can NOT prove a negative...Who knows, some would ask, maybe they DO exist,
but no living person has seen them...Science discovers "new" species fairly often, actually.
One can say that it is "unlikely", perhaps "very unlikely", but one can't really say "absolutely not".
I'll give you an example -- What would you give the chances of a WWII soldier never having heard, by 1980, for instance
that that war ended in the mid-nineteen forties?....Pretty slim, right?....That being as it may, a Japanese soldier was found
in a cave sometime in the early '80s. He was "hiding" there because he thought that war was still going on!..Strange, but true.
What you are basing your thinking on is something called "strict empiricism" and it's the idea that everything that is REAL can
be "sensed" through one of our five senses. It has a lot going for it, but not ENOUGH, at least at this moment in
time, to be confused with Absolute Truth, because some "evidence", like germs and other microscopic organisms, for instance, can't
be seen with the naked eye...That means that before the invention of the microscope, no one, not the brightest minds
of the age, knew what caused illness and it was blamed on it all kinds of things, like, "evil humors", "witchcraft", etc. which now sound
stupid and "crazy". Were they stupid or crazy?...No. They simply had not YET come into possession of that "tool" which would
allow them to see the REALITY of those things.
The same applies to the existence of "God" or "A higher power" or whatever one chooses to call it, as
the "tool" which might reveal the "reality" may still be awaiting discovery. It also may not..That's why I'm an agnostic,
and not an atheist. Agnostics "know" what they do not know.
In addition, of course, there are many who think there is something called a "sixth sense" and there is LOADS of anecdotal "evidence"
for things like telepathy, precognition, etc. Strict empiricists will twist themselves inside out trying to find some "scientific" answer
for these experiences, but so far, they haven't been able to. You can believe ALL of them are "crazy" or "lying" or
leave your mind OPEN to the possibility that these people experienced these things, but they can't be "objectively" proven
at this point in time, and, like the existence of God, it may never be able to be "proven". In the meantime, nothing convinces
a person more than personal experience.
P.S. One can't really speculate on what the "percentage" a thing may have to be real, as we may be TOTALLY without the one
"tool" or "discovery" that could, like the microscope, prove ALL previous theories as false.
(bless her holy hooves!)
Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them. — Steve Eley
And of course, there are the Pastafarians who follow the Flying Spaghetti Monster:
Great post, Scootaloo! 
"The wonderful thing about science is that it works even if you don't believe in it." 
I specified "fundamentalist" in my post. Not a broad brush or over-generalization.
Greed?
a long time ago.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
Epicurus – Greek philosopher, BC 341-270
I thought you were "through" with me?
I'm an agnostic, not the "true believer" you
so predictably assumed me to be. 
...useful," thus demonstrating an overall lack of understanding of how science even works. That's how I took it anyway, but I could be wrong.
Too funny, that quote: " Science will fly you to Mars, fundamentalist religion flies you into buildings."
Oh, I will be dining out on that one, for days. Thank you!
Good point, although not all Christian denominations are anti-science it often seems that the majority of them are..
I certainly have my problems with the Catholic church for instance but they do fund the Vatican Advanced Technology Telescope on Mount Graham in Arizona..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_Advanced_Technology_Telescope
Sagan. The typo actually makes a difference here.
I'm going to leave it, though. It was a palin stupid typo.
The beautiful display of Physics at Nagasaki:
Fun with Uranium at Hiroshima:
Note: Those weren't put together by a prayer group at Radio Shack.
