Let them "protest" the protest! I love America! Everyone may speak their mind-- and it's up to the people to use their brain to decide (hopefully not their emotions) what seems reasonable...

I'm surprised to hear Phelps has children. Based on their actions, I thought they ate their young.

Denver Bill, your comments always make me grin.

Nah, Denver Bill 2, I think this particular group prefers to eat other peoples young. This whole event it going to be the circus of all circuses.

What a sad creature.

Nate, if you can escape then anybody can escape from the brainwashing.

It's time to come out.

Atheist Proud !!

.

Well, its no surprise he went rogue and atheist. However, his father represents CHrist incorrectly and this guy need to know God and Jesus are real and that God does love him. I pray he gets past it and finds the Lord.

davsie, you assert that "God and Jesus are real". What is your evidence to support that claim?

Of course, there is none, only faith. And the strength and depth of a person's faith is never evidence of the validity of that which in the faith is placed. I.E., your faith and the faith of a person of a different and opposing religion will clash, no matter how strong either of you are in your faith. You can not be equally right about what you believe in, but you CAN both be equally wrong.

You should attend the gathering in Washington for reason, you and those like you are welcome to come with an open mind and if you behave yourselves. You just might learn something useful.

I am an atheist, and applaud the younger Phelps for breaking free of this delusion that has plagued mankind for all our existence.

Dav,

Who are you to say that his god isn't the real one? His god more accuratetly represents the god worshiped during the writing of the bible. Only recently have Christians stopped stoning homosexuals and Jews. Not more than about 300 years ago, Christians in this country still burned the mentally ill at the stake. The argument could easily be made that you do not know the "true" Christian god.

"When I was a child I spoke as a child I understood as a child I thought as a child; but when I became a man I put away childish things."

This includes belief in the supernatural and in irrational causation. It is OK if you do or Ok if you don't. For me it got to be time to grow up.

oh, you don't know the half of it. Nate has described it...

jcsmine, stoning was never a practice of Christians. It was part of Rabbinic law and is stall practiced in Islam.

Who can make cent$ out of religion ... we know the answer to that ... fools and their $ are soon parted!

Anybody up for doing a frozen paintball pellet drive-by on the WBC folks?

jcsmine, stoning was never a practice of Christians.

That's right. Christians preferred to burn people who disagree with them.

The Bible verse mentioned below is truly in God's word. God has given all of us knowledge of His existance, I don't believe that gives Westboro the right to call people fools, that is for God to determine not man. I don't like how Westboro puts themselves in the place of the Almighty God.

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God” Ps14:1

I pray for his son and tell him that God knows the sorrow he has seen and ask that he not turn his back on God because of the poor decisions of his dad. His dad is only a pitiful man who is frustrating himself and everyone else with his actions.

Barry, I don't believe that all Christians should be placed in that basket you are holding.

I guess even Christianity has it's own version of the Taliban. I prefer to believe that if there were a god and he really cared for us, he would be above all this petty crap like eternal damnation, etc. That's not the way a "loving" god would behave.

No matter how badly my children misbehave, I still love them, and would never wish for them to be punished for all eternity, just because they didn't believe what I was trying to teach them. Especially if I expected them to take it all in "faith". If I tell them that eating an apple will turn them into a pumpkin, I would expect them to be skeptical. Duhh! Religion just doesn't make any sense to me.

And this wacko church and freak of a manager is one more strike against it. Add them to the list of "need to be eliminated as soon as possible", right along with the wacko Islamic radicals, child murderers, serial killers, and the nut jobs that will try to turn this issue into some political rant.

It is things like this that try men's souls. It tests our commitment to freedom of speech and we cannot be found wanting.

The Neo-Nazi march through Skokie, Illinois, the various Klan events and the military funerals of our soldiers protested by the Westboro church.

The Constitution guarantees them the right of free assembly and free speech and as much as I would like to shut them down, shut them up, and have them all sent to a deprogramming camp somewhere, it would be wrong to do so.

This is America, and the public display of their hate, ignorance and intolerance is their constitutional right. If can we abide their acts, turn a deaf hear to their hate and ignore them, they have no power to harm us. We are better for it and we have protected our rights and theirs under the constitution, because that is the American way.

Peace.

I would not shed a single tear if they were all taken out.

As a christian i think its awesome that atheist can express themselves and come together and share they're beliefs, or lack there of. As for the westboro nuts, there is nothing "Christ-like" about their behavior. Jesus' teachings NEVER said anything about acting with comtempt towards fellow humans as they have shown, IF Christians acted just slightly as christ demanded with love and compassion, loving thy neighbor....etc...the world wouldn't be in the state that it is. That said, Atheist should always becareful to not become what they hate, tolerance, respect, are two way streets, belief systems are what they are and to gain the repect of others you cannot forget to treat others as you want to be treated...or Do onto others as you would have them do unto you...a teaching most christains have forgotten.

That said, Atheist should always becareful to not become what they hate, tolerance, respect, are two way streets, belief systems are what they are and to gain the repect of others you cannot forget to treat others as you want to be treated

I agree with your post for the most part, but I don't owe religion itself any amount of respect or deference just because it is religion. It takes more than that. Some religions I have no respect for, and for good reason. Some religions I do not tolerate because of their intolerance. I owe a religion as much respect as I owe any other belief system, which would be none at all.

I think that's sort of the problem with some religious folk - they see their personal belief system as a sacred cow that cannot be questioned or criticized, no matter how ridiculous, because it is 'religious' in nature.

On the other hand, many religious people have earned my respect - even if I don't believe in their tenants. Some religions even, have earned my respect, for the wisdom and open-mindedness that they espouse.

I think some of the people on this board might be missing the irony in their strong condemnations of religion and other people's belief systems, while at the same time mocking the ridiculous actions of WBC - who are... condemning other religions and people's belief systems. There has to be a bit of an attitude of live and let live in this situation. That being said, religion (any and all, as a whole) have typically been used as political devices, and by Jesus own definition disqualify themselves from being his followers. I think, everyone, including atheists, can appreciate Jesus' teachings. Ghandi himself said that if the world followed Christ's teachings, the whole world would be at peace. He also said I like your Christ... but your Christians are so unlike your Christ.

If that source doesn't work, you can always just use my favorite quote from "Hitch Hiker's Guide..." One thousand, nine hundred and seventy-four years after they nailed a man to a tree for saying, wouldn't it be great if we were all nice to each other for a change?, Arthur Dent was preparing his tea.

Barry, Catholics liked to burn people who disagreed with them.

Mary Tudor aka Bloody Mary burned thousands of Protestants during her reign.

As far as Fred Phelps abusing his kids, is anybody really surprised? No? Didn't think so.

Thank God (yep, I said it) that they aren't all whackadoos. Gives me a little more faith in humanity.

I am not perfect myself, so we have all fallen short having said and done things we should be sorry about, and everyone in my understanding is a 'child of God' to him, age doesnt change that to him. who am I to throw stones, I dont have all the answers. do you know why you have a different tastebud chemistry than other people so that we d ont all like the taste of all foods. why not??? we are all children of God right??? did you know there are women that have the other sexual part down 'there'. its not their fault and a freaky thing doesnt make that person 'freak. image for a moment having the chemistry of having the sexual attraction to your own sex as you now do to the opposite sex. then you are not suppose to have that chemistry(desire) and you dont want that desire but you have it like it or not like you either like the taste of liver and onions or you dont. period. you did not choose that chemistry. then imagine for one moment only that you are suppose to feel guilty all your life because of this chemistry desire apart from any personal choices on your own, . you cant hug someone of the same sex or get in a relationship and for sure feel guilty about personal private pleasure, because you have decided not to be involved in any sexual behavior with someone. still you have that sexual chemistry desire and a sexual drive and need. a wet dream is not a choice. then you can mabe understand what its like to be in the less than 10percent of any population or group of people. I am one of those people and a christian. so much hate in the name of God. why??????????????????????????// I hope God my father is not like that. Jesus is not. I do know. thank you. rich 2012

rich2012...

wtf did you just say?

Why am I not surprised that this church is located in the State of Kansas? Why am I not surprised the the pastor of this church has been accused of child molestation in the State of Kansas? Why am I not surprised that the child molesting pastor has not been arrested for child molestation in the State of Kansas? Why am I not surprised that GOD seems to HATE the State of Kansas (he throws so many rocks/meteroites at the State of Kansas)? Apparently evolution stopped in Kansas quite some time ago. The population seems to be biologically retarded.

Not sure he counts as a "kid" now that he's 54 years old...

You're always somebody's kid, no matter how old.

I'm a little surprised he managed to get out alive.

Just goes to show good CAN come from evil.

Ironically, they call themselves Democrats. Fred Phelps himself ran as a Democratic governer along with other offices and was even considered a human rights activist for blacks when he was an attorney. By 1989 he was fully disbared nation wide for ethics violations. I believe that four of his offspring left that abusive enviroment and are considered disowned and the other nine that he spawned had families that grew so large that they bought up the properties of their neighbors that they harassed into moving away. Hell, he's too extreme even for the Republicans.

You know they are one @!$%#ed up group when even the representatives of the KKK have distanced themselves from them and calls them a "hate group" and pickets the funeral of Jerry Falwell whom he himself wanted nothing to do with, even if their ideologies are very simular. The best way to deal with them is to legislate that their tax exception be lifted and that their attorney fees they recieve be curbed since they are based on a civil rights law enacted in the 70's not to mention their flagrant lawsuits. After that, their annual $200,000 traveling expenses will be a waste and they will have no choice to find something else to do with themselves.

Actually, none of us had ever heard of him until this article was published. He ran away from home and up to Canada to escape his father's loonies. Can't say that I blame him. On the other hand, I can't blame religion in general or Christianity in particular for the madness that is his father and his followers--mostly his own progeny. There are plenty of sociopaths megalomaniacs in the world. Mr. Phelps, Sr. is certainly one of those. By the way folks, atheism is a faith that there is no god. It is not a fact-based endeaver. We do not know the origins of the universe or life or anything, really. We have opinions, all of which require some modicum of faith. The so-called "laws" of physics require unquestioned acceptance of certain postulates. By the way, those "laws" got set on their heads several times in the last hundred or so years. Scientists expect the next discovery to upset the applecart yet again--all that talk of quarks, worm holes, black holes, and warping of the space-time continuum (which is silly in and of itself, time is our own creation based on relative perception. Infinity, by definition is immeasurable. Why do we keep trying? Either life and the universe is some grand accident or, as Einstein heimslef observed, there is an intelligent force behind it all. Just my opinion and we all know what that is worth.

thankyou for that. ur post is the only one that got to the point. and u used fact to write it. thanks again.

Saying that atheism is a "faith that there is no god" is like saying that believing there is no Santa Claus is a "faith that there is no Santa Claus." Atheism just means not believing in something for which there is absolutely no evidence.

He probably is all of those things, but just doesn't have the balls to come out and admit it.

In the words of the immortal bard (slightly misquoted) "methinks he doth protest too much".

What...haa?

Nyny - it's not because of the extremists that most atheists (like myself) have rejected religion, although it certainly makes it that much easier. The reason we reject religion is because it's based on absurd stone age myths, it is utterly lacking in logic, and it's in direct contradiction to everything we know about the world through free scientific inquiry. Translation - it's a bunch of BS. We reject the doctrines and premises of religion. The various nutcases promoting it are just comic fodder.

Agree 100% with Brian. Agnostics and atheists simply reject belief in ANY imaginary beings, not just the Christian god. Zeus, Ra, Athena, leprechauns, fairies, all the 100+ Aztec gods, and yes, Jehovah... all equally fictional.

Chad, Brian -- You two are certain of something you know NOTHING about. Neither one of you two arrogant haters can even begin to understand the nature of reality anymore than I can.

I choose to believe. You two can continue choosing to be certain of something no one knows anything about.

There are fools everywhere.

I always hate getting into arguments about religion on the internet...I must be a masochist.

"Religion is based on stone age myths." Well, not all religions surely? But I assume you're talking about Abrahamic religions since those are the predominant religions in western civilization. But even those are not likely stone age. At the very least Christianity and Islam would not be considered stone age religions. Do you think Rome and Byzantium are stone age civilizations?

"Religion is utterly lacking in logic." I hear this one a lot, mostly from people who haven't tried to understand the logic behind religion. Read 'Mere Christianity' by C.S. Lewis if you want to find out about the logic behind religion. You might not be comfortable with his conclusions, but you can't deny that he does a very admirable job of applying reason to religion. It is wrong to present Christians as intellectual slouches.

"Religion is in direct contradiction to everything we know about the world through free scientific inquiry." This might be true for some people (Creationists and Intelligent Designers - I'm looking at you!) but it is not true for myself or many other believers for that matter. Science presents absolutely no threat to my beliefs (Christian). Read "The Language of God" by Francis S. Collins (Former head of the Human Genome Project and currently the Director of the National Institutes of Health) for his thoughts on being a serious scientist and a serious Christian. This supposed conflict between science and religion is being pushed by certain atheists who have their own agenda. It is pure fabrication. In fact, Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design are misguided responses to this "New Atheism." St. Augustine urged caution about the Genesis story over 1,000 years before Darwin presented his most excellent theory.

"in matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision ... we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it." - "On the Literal Meaning of Genesis," Augustine of Hippo.

Although, to be on topic, I am actually happier that Nate Phelps is an atheist rather than a Westboro Baptist. Better to believe God doesn't exist, than to believe the lies the Phelps family tell about Him.

you choose to believe in what, Jeff? make sure you made the right choice, or you may as well be an atheist when the sh*t hits the fan...

I'd rather believe that I was created in the image of a deity, as opposed to, being descended from a swollen-assed baboon. You have the right to believe or not believe and I respect that. It's something that makes our country truly great. I just wonder why atheists and agnostics can't respect my choice to believe?

doyourhomework -- No need to try to trick me. I have no compulsions that those who do not believe will be damned. My response to those two is not based on fire and brimstone religiosity, but rather on metaphysical and ontological sentiments.

There is no greater reasoning, rationality, or logic in atheism than there is in simple belief. None whatsoever.

It's just arrogance.

HChris -- Very well said.

Well said Chris, I find atheism an excuse for selfish arrogance, which of course religion can also be twisted into , but real Christian belief is none of that.

I also agree with Brian-1903567. Only an ignoramus would publicly state that they find it easier to believe in christ than that they are descended from a baboon. Any educated person knows that humans are not descended from baboons. We have a common ancestor, but that is a different matter.

HChris:

Either you haven't read your bible or you cherry pick or both. Westboro B. ARE accurately representing the Bible....much more accurately than most Christians do today. The Bible is far more about promoting mass murder, genocide, rape, child sacrifice and other unimaginable horrors then anything else.

Fuel,

On the contrary, I read my bible regularly. To say I am cherry picking is more accurate, but still not nearly accurate enough. For I do value certain verses over others - not all verses were created equal. Jesus himself does this, I merely follow his example.

In fact, you are cherry picking far more than I, my friend. For to come to the conclusion that you hold, requires you to ignore the message of the Bible and focus on the verses you dislike (although, I think you rather like those verses because they appear to validate your 'dislike' of the book in general. However, they do not.)

To be honest, I wonder at your accusations. I would venture a guess that it is you, not me, who has not read the Bible. Or if you have read it, you did not understand it. I hope that either of those is the case, because the only other alternative is that you are deliberately misrepresenting what the Bible's message is. I do not believe you would be that dishonest.

If you think the Bible is "far more about promoting mass murder, genocide, rape, child sacrifice and other unimaginable horrors then anything else," I recommend you read your Bible more - or perhaps with a knowledgeable Christian friend who can help you understand it.

Jeff-2301289, "Arrogant haters"? You're the one who comes here with the labels, and telling us all how these two self-described atheists "know nothing about" the subject of religion, or perhaps it's just Christianity you're referring to.

Neither one made a single statement of hate in their posts, yet you accuse them of being arrogant haters.

Sorry, but cyber-bullying doesn't work on rational people.

Also HChris: It might interest you to know that most atheists and agnostics have read your "holy" book, (the Bible) and several other "holy" books too. Cover to cover. I for one have read the Bible than once, and more than one version, as an academic exercise. Reading that book with scrutiny will reveal so many self-contradictions and purported acts of magic as to laughable. The translations and interpretations contained therein have changed over the generations, if you ever get a chance to read a Christian Bible printed before 1690 C.E. ("A.D." to you), do so. I mean REALLY read it. And resist the urge you'll feel as a believer to rationalize and forgive that which makes no sense at all, even to you.

"God couldn't kill the inhabitants of the valley because they had chariots of iron". It's in Kings. Makes me wonder what this "God" would do against a single F-16, let alone a modern army.

You'll learn that God is capable of mistakes and lacks forethought. Right in the Book of Genesis, your supposed "God" makes man first, and thinks he's done making humanity. Only later, when he saw that Adam was "lonely" and "needed a helper" did he decide to make Eve, the female. Not from the Earth, as he did Adam, but from one of Adam's ribs. Moral of the story: Man cometh from God, woman cometh from man. It's misogyny in it's purset form. The Biblical story of Eden continues: Eve is tempted by the serpent (AKA "the devil") to eat of the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge. It's not an apple. Apples didn't exist 5,000 years ago; it's a man-made hybrid fruit. It's a metaphor: the tree of knowledge is forbidden to man by God. (Why is knowledge forbidden??) The woman eats of this fruit, and not content to be the only one to defy God, takes the man (Adam) down with her by getting him to eat of it too.

Moral of the story: Never trust a woman, never empower a woman.

These are just two of dozens upon dozens of examples of why your "Bible" is to be dismissed as fiction and myth, do any open minded research and you'll find so many others. The key is to see it for what it is, not to begin with the assumptive belief that the blueprints for your core identity are flawless and "holy".

HChris, you mention the "message of the Bible"... what message is that? To be good? Nope. Obey or else? I'd say that's part of it. Free will is an illusion? Yep. Turn the other cheek? The quote is in there (paraphrased) but not supported by so many other things that "Jesus" or his "all knowing heavenly father" supposedly said.

I'd rather believe that I was created in the image of a deity, as opposed to, being descended from a swollen-assed baboon.

Sorry to be the one to break it to you, but you ARE a primate- whether or not you like it. That's the difference between the religious and atheists- we believe what IS true, rather than believing what we'd LIKE to be true.

Some reject religion because of its evil deeds, while folks like me reject it due to lack of evidence. The result is the same: a free thinking human who knows that reason should guide one's life, not superstition.

99octane,

I have no doubt that many atheists and agnostics have read the Bible. I was not suggesting that they hadn't, merely that it was possible Fuel hadn't. You'll notice I didn't claim that because he was an atheist or agnostic he therefore must not have read the Bible. No, I said based on his understanding of the Bible (or lack thereof) he either: A) Hadn't read the entire Bible, only certain parts; or B) Read the entire Bible, but only understood certain parts. Therefore he has an incomplete and therefore flawed understanding of the Bible. If he had only read the parts he mentioned it is hardly surprising he holds the view that he does!

I really don't see what advantage a Bible that was printed prior to 1690 would have over a Bible printed post 1690. Would you care to elaborate? Also thank you for the condescension ("'AD' to you"). A healthy dose of it is always good for discussion.

As for the verse about iron chariots (it is in Judges 1). I have no idea what that means. Technically the verse should read: And the Lord was with Judah, and he (Judah) took possession of the hill country, but he (Judah) could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain because they had chariots of iron. So clearly the question is, if the Lord was with Judah, why couldn't he defeat chariots of iron? I don't know that I can give an answer that will satisfy you, in fact I know I can't. What does it mean that the Lord was 'with' Judah? In the Genesis story (we'll get to that in more detail later) Adam and Eve 'walked' with God, yet they still sinned. In the New Testament, Peter was (quite literally) 'with' Jesus, yet when he attempted to walk on water, he ultimately failed. Perhaps it was something similar, Judah feared the iron chariots on the plains (as well he might) and so did not fight them (the verse does not say the Israelites were defeated).

Regardless this is not necessarily the case - I could be wrong. Does that then mean that the Lord was unable to defeat the chariots? You said you read the Bible without assumptions (I doubt it, but I'll take you at your word) so let me ask you this: When you read that God created the Heavens and the Earth, did you believe it? If you didn't believe it, were you reading it without making assumptions? If you DID believe it, then the story of Judah and the iron chariots doesn't appear to make sense. Now when you read the verse in Judges did you immediately think, "Well so much for this!" and stop? Did you even TRY to reconcile it? It is, after all, not impossible that what I said above is true - it might be. It certainly makes more sense than the Bible claiming God is the creator of everything but he can't help Judah defeat iron chariots. Yet again, even if that is not true, does the fact that I can't explain a verse in the Bible somehow de-legitimize the Bible? Let me ask you this: Does the fact that science can't explain what happened at the exact moment of the Big Bang de-legitimize all of science? Not at all.

Moral of the story: Man cometh from God, woman cometh from man. It's misogyny in it's purset form.

Does Man come from God? That's not what the Bible says, that's not even what you say. You said Adam was made from the earth. Dirt. Dust. You say Eve was made "Not from the Earth, as he did Adam, but from one of Adam's ribs." So Eve is made from bone, not earth (although Adam was made from earth so the argument could be made that she is still made of earth). Now which is better, earth or bone? I couldn't say, can you? More importantly Genesis 2:24 says, "²⁴ That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh." United in one flesh - sounds pretty equal to me.

But this is really beside the point because I don't believe the creation story or the story Adam and Eve in Genesis are literal. Also for the forbidden fruit story, I don't think it necessarily had to happen like that, just that humans somehow, someway disobeyed God and sinned. Heck, I do it all the time.

The message of the Bible is this: God created us. We rebelled. God chose a man and his descendants to reveal himself to. He gave them the law. They could not follow it. They owed God a debt they could not repay. Out of love, God became a man and paid their debt. Because of his love, we worship him.

That is essentially the story of the Bible. Seriously, as I posted before if you REALLY want to know what Christianity is about read Lewis. Mere Christianity.

And this is why I don't get into internet discussion about religion. There is too much to even go over, and most people aren't sincere. Good day.

And this is why I don't get into internet discussion about religion. There is too much to even go over, and most people aren't sincere. Good day.

...said the guy who just did, complete with spouted Bible verses and attempts to counter most everything I typed. LOL

I really don't see what advantage a Bible that was printed prior to 1690 would have over a Bible printed post 1690.

Then you didn't read my post very carefully.

Would you care to elaborate?

Certainly. The earlier translations and incarnation of your Bible contain more clues as to the absurdity and ignorance of it's many authors. (And translators, and fraudulent editors). Important bits and pieces that a reasonably well educated person might pick up on here in the 21st Century are now gone. The bit about the forbidden tree (of knowledge) in the Genesis myth is but one example.

Also thank you for the condescension ("'AD' to you"). A healthy dose of it is always good for discussion.

No problem, glad to be of service. ;-) But seriously, I do not use the "B.C." and "A.D." markers to denote time, I use "B.C.E." and "C.E." Shall I assume you know the distinction?

does the fact that I can't explain a verse in the Bible somehow de-legitimize the Bible? Let me ask you this: Does the fact that science can't explain what happened at the exact moment of the Big Bang de-legitimize all of science? Not at all.

This is a silly comparison, but I don't expect a believer to understand why. Being unable to explain a verse in the Bible should at least BEGIN to cast doubt on it's validity, but that's a journey you (and every other believer) should take on your own. You haven't hired me to explain it to you, and I do not volunteer beyond these posts on a message board. My time is worth something, and the process is lengthy - but the good news is you can do it alone. I did. And I doubt you'd for one second admit that I can do something you can't, right?

"Science" isn't a thing, it's a process, a methodology - it can not be "de-legitimized". Bad or faulty or even fraudulent science is always found out by good science. It's a self-correcting system. Religion doesn't work that way.

The message of the Bible is this: God created us. We rebelled. God chose a man and his descendants to reveal himself to. He gave them the law. They could not follow it. They owed God a debt they could not repay. Out of love, God became a man and paid their debt. Because of his love, we worship him.

Do you realize that this is essentially the description of a control freak; a narcissistic, vain and demented bully? It's also utter nonsense. A magic man in the sky (which will get NO explanation) created the entire universe with humanity as the point of it all (ha!) with all the other animals being here for our consumption and use. This magic God then told his creations the rules (law), but his pathetic little ungrateful creations coulod not follow those rules. Worship me or else! You speak of a debt we owe this "God". What debt?? Our existence? No child has EVER won an argument with it's parents saying "I never asked to be born!" So out of "love", God becomes a man (after impregnating his own mother?) and gives up his life so that the debt LIVING people owed this "God" from their DEAD ANCESTORS could be repaid.

Wake up and smell what you're shoveling.

Condescending? Yes, I'll freely admit it, I'm being condescending. Sorry about it on the one hand; I'm sure you're a nice enough person and if we knew eachother in person and not just text on a screen we might even be friends. But since that's all we are to eachother, and only the meat of this issue is on the table, no point in pleasantries and bullsh't, right?

Let me tell you of two other gods. One was a demi-god named Hercules. He was the offspring of a god and a mortal. He grew up among mortals and spent his adult life running around the mortal world doing good deeds for mortals. But ultimately he gave up his life defending the mortal realm in a battle with the gods. Three days later his mother, Hera, rose him from the dead and promoted Hercules to full god, to take his place among the gods, on the condition that he never interfere with mortal affairs again.

The other is Horus, son of Ra. He had 12 high priests. Often depicted in Egyptian heiroglyphs as having the head of a Lion or a Lamb, depending on whether he came for war or peace. He was the god of the downtrodden, the last resort. He was the champion of the mortals who had the roughest lives, the slaves and the servants, the common man. Horus so loathed Anubis, the god of the underworld (death), and what suffering death meant to the mortals he loved so much, that he challenged Anubis to a final battle to defeat death - if Horus won no mortal would have to suffer the pain of death ever again. But the battle was fought in the underworld, Anubis' turf, and Horus was killed by Anubis. Ra took pity on his son Horus and resurrected him, and Horus is depicted seated at the right hand of the father, Ra. Again, on the condition that he stop interfering in the affairs of mortals.

...any of this beginning to sink in?

Good posts Octane and Chris.

I'm not religious myself. I don't automatically deny spiritual things, but I don't subscribe to it outright either. All religions are fundamentally 'getting it wrong' as far as I'm concerned. Abrahamic religions have a clear heritage in their pagan roots, and Christianity is so similar to other popular saviour cults of the time (Horus, Mithras) that it's impossible to deny that much much of the story is likely borrowed fiction.

I don't see the point in believing something which is completely and utterly insubstantiated, with so many contradictions, with clear fictional influences, and a checkered past of being used as a tool for oppression and manipulation. Why, on earth, would I choose to believe in any of that when all the 'good things' that come from religion can be done without religion?

And then, don't forget many of their followers who say things like this:

I'd rather believe that I was created in the image of a deity, as opposed to, being descended from a swollen-assed baboon.

In one sentence, displaying not only a total ignorance when it comes to evolution - but also a stubborn incurious nature and a smug arrogance only seen in the most religious. This would be a person that calls atheists 'arrogant' yet here he is refusing to believe descendance from an ape because it is 'beneath him'. He refuses to accept reality because, as he makes clear, he PREFERS believing he is in the image of a god. I'm sorry, but reality does not cowtow to our self-important preferences. What could possibly be more 'arrogant' than asserting that we, as humans, are not only the center of the universe but the 'special creation' of the one and only god of that universe? That is supreme arrogance if you ask me.



To any fellow atheists:

Not many of us do this, but for those who do (you know who you are), can we *please* not insult our theistic counterparts? It's a grassroots PR disaster when we unnecessarily insult people just by the way verbalize our thoughts. For example, I find all of religion wholly unconvincing. I require evidence before belief and the evidence just isn't there. Hearsay and God of the gaps hold no weight, only credible scientific evidence does. My asymptotic atheism is a logical corollary of intellectualism and rationalism. What I just said would be an excellent way to describe why I am atheist.

What I wouldn't say when asked to describe my beliefs is to start out by saying religion is bull@!$%# that only incredulous people believe in. And the reason is it because it pisses people off. Enemies are created unnecessarily and we unwittingly build barriers to effective communication. I challenge people to think for themselves but I'm not about to insult them because we think differently about the world.

Can't we be the magnanimous ones here?

Noah R ~~ Thanks for your presentation of reason. I am not a religious person, nor am I an atheist. I do know that there are things that man cannot explain or prove, which doesn't mean that they don't exist, or that they aren't real. All it means is, that science/man simply does not have the knowledge currently, to explain, prove or dis-prove it, whatever 'it' happens to be. I think people will believe what they believe until they learn something different, but not until they open their minds and hearts and actually challenge what they currently believe.

To be radical on either side of this fence is very damaging to BOTH sides. Sometimes we need to build a bridge, rather than burn a bridge.

Noah,

Good job on that post. I don't believe, but I don't knock those that do. Some of my best friends believe (grin). No reason to call names or belittle people for their beliefs. If you can't justify your position without going there, your only proving the other persons point.

Noah, you seem to be the only rational rationalist on this thread. I believe you are repeating the same thoughts put forth by Spencer Tracy's character in Inherit the Wind, deriding his youthful client's callous remarks about the demise of his holier-than-thou prosecutor and his patent disregard of Brady's religious beliefs. Drummand (Tracy) lectures him regarding the fact of his lack of knowledge of the Bible which he dismisses out of hand as myth. Drummand's knowledge of the Bible is what led to the public humiliation of his opponent as well as the deminished charges at sentencing. Drummand respected Brady's right to litterally believe the Bible and was arguing the case for Cane's right to question it and to teach evolutionary theory in public schools. He did not even think it wrong to teach Biblical creation as an alternative concept. The point being that mutual respect should be where we have arrived, not social division.

Noah, people don't embrace reason and abandon superstition because non-believers are polite. They do it because they look at the evidence and come to the conclusion that there are no gods. If friendliness was what converted people to a way of thinking, we'd all be Mormons.

Noah,

I applaud what you're saying, even knowing I'm among those your post is directed to. Allow me to explain, if not justify, my open hostility towards theists. (Believers). I am a human being complete with emotions too. I've been (figuratively) shat upon, (literally) spat upon, ridiculed, condemned, dismissed and had part of a teaching career destroyed over someone ELSE's religious views not being accepted by me.

You speak of things pissing people off, well, I'm done playing nice. It doesn't work with zealots. If, in your circles, your hyper-intellectual explanation satisfies any querries put to you about the merits of one's religious views (or lack thereof), good for you. You must travel among the rarest of all zealots, those with higher education. But here in the real world, people like me are sick to death of the utter mind-numbing nonsense displayed all around us and thrust into our daily lives - and indeed thrust UPON US, directly affecting us.

I'm pissed off too, and as such I can not hide it behind some superior intellectualism. I'm a person with feelings too, and I very much consider religious zealots who pass this disease of the mind on to their children the enemy of reason, critical thinking, and human advancement. I choose to champion those causes and defend them. It's been clear for eons that they've ALWAYS felt hostile towards people who don't worship their god as they do, or any god at all (imagine that!). So yeah, sorry but, the gloves are off.

Thanks for the replies, guys. I have to admit that I wasn't suggesting that we be polite for any reason but showing kindness towards our fellow human beings.

Also 99octane you are right about me, in the sense that I don't come from a place where my lack of belief elicits open hostility. Specifically I'm considering a career in the hard sciences, which also involves higher education, and I suppose that's about as non-religious of a group as you can be in the US. I agree that religionists on the whole are far worse at treating people of other faiths and non-believers as human beings than atheists treat theists.

Anyway, I don't have any constructive answers. Civil rights never came about by being "nice" and compared to the real world, I really do come from a vacuum. I can get away with my idealistic thinking but in retrospect it's pretty naive to have thought my position was typical in any way. Do what you've gotta do.

What Bible are they reading? The same Bible that orders homosexuals be stoned, that condones slavery, that orders rape victims to marry their attackers, and that glorifies genocide and infanticide. You know, the Bible. That Bible. Yes, they're a bunch of absolute loons, but they are interpreting and applying the Bible literally. Sorry if it seems stupid once you really read the words....

Its all the same pete.

Pete, you clearly, CLEARLY haven't read the Bible. It's filled to overflowing with atrocities. I suggest you read it before putting your ignorance on sparkling display. I'm sure you haven't read the Qur'an, either, but they're just opposite sides of the same evil coin.

Check out www.thedarkbible.com. You'll get a clearer view of what the Bible actually contains.... not just John 3:16 and Romans 8:28 and the selected "nice" verses you hear from the pulpit.

Pete, your reply was hilariously illustrative of the sad, pathetic cluelessness that comprises the scaffolding of Christianity. I'm sorry to burst your bible, but it will only take you about 5 minutes of research to pull up bible verses - both Old and New Testament - that illustrate exactly my point.

Oh, and let's not forget when Saul bought some chick with several hundred Philistine foreskins (!) and the "god" character was pleased. That was a real gem.

I love how atheists know the bible better than 99% of all Christians. The best way to convert a Christian to atheism is to actually read the stupid book for once.

Hey Chad and Brian -- The rest of us are still waiting to hear from where those first group of atoms came. Any ideas?

We would really like to know.

@Pete: You do know that Judaism, Islam AND Christianity are all considered Abrahamic religions with the same origin, right?

Jeff - another stupid attack. Those of us who can think, realize we don't know everything, but we do have logical explanations for just about everything that came after the big bang. You, on the other hand, have the writings of a bunch of stone age shepherds who took stories from other earlier cultures, and the remarkable ability to ignore logic, fact and common sense.

I saw it-

Nate is 54, but he left his crazy father when he was a teenager. Like most people raised in a cult, it took him a long time to come to terms with his life and begin speaking publicly against it, which he does in a very clear and positive manner.

i saw it:

Oh YES this IS RELIGION in all its glory! Thank you Wesboro Wakos for demonstrating the true nature of faith based beliefs!!!

Jeff, science doesn't have a definitive answer for the origins of matter. However, it doesn't claim to. It continues to search using logic and a rational method of deduction. Religion says, "Well, we don't know, so we'd better make up a deity to cover our bases."

In the past, Norse people didn't understand the origin of thunder, so they invented a god, Thor, whose hammerstrokes created the loud, booming sound. Science, in time, explained to us what really caused thunder: the rapid expansion of superheated air surrounding a strike of lightning. As a result, nobody believes in Thor any longer.

See how it works? Science never purports to have all the answers; in fact, much of its strength lies in its clear admittance of the fact that it doesn't!

Jeff-2301289 typed:

Hey Chad and Brian -- The rest of us are still waiting to hear from where those first group of atoms came. Any ideas?

We would really like to know.

The universe as we know it did not come from nothing.

A quantum uni-dimensional singularity is not "nothing".
In fact, it was
everything.
Some 14 billion years ago that singularity failed and expanded,

an event known by the somewhat misnomer "Big Bang" title.
The universe inflated in at least 4 dimensions, the 4th being time,
the others being the x,y,z axis we understand and live in 3-D everyday.
When it was large enough, things calmed/cooled down enough for quantum particles to coalesce into the building blocks of atoms; neutrons, protons and electrons (as well as their
antimatter counterparts).

So you asked about the first atoms: When atoms first formed, almost all of them formed
as hydrogen for a simple reason ~ it's the simplest element; #1 on the periodic table.
1 electron orbiting a nucleus of 1 proton and 1 neutron.

The hydrogen cloud that comprised most of the early universe had mass,
therefore gravity pulled denser knots of it together, which ultimately got
so dense causing such heat that a thermonuclear chain reaction ignited the core of the
cloud into a star. This happened a few trillion times all over the universe. This is how all stars are formed.

Stars, as they blaze, break apart hydrogen atoms (fission) and fuse the
leftover particles (fusion) onto other unsplit hydrogen atoms and through this
process (nucleosynthesis) heavier atoms are created. Helium, Lithium, and up the
periodic table. A star will NEVER split Iron (Fe) or anything heavier than iron,
which is #26 on the periodic table, because it takes more energy to split an
iron atom than you get from the act of splitting it. So iron collects at the
core of stars. That's how we can tell how old they are; how much iron the star
has. When supermassive stars build up too much iron, they develop a shockwave
between the coronashpere (outer layers) and the core that destroys the star,
this is a supernova explosion. In those events, the iron barrier is broken and
all the other elements in the universe are created in a flash, and spewn out
into the cosmos. Heavy metal, heavy elemental nebulae are formed, and new star
systems emerge from them, such as ours, rich in heavy elements.

The dance of chemistry, given the raw materials and vast spans of time it needs, along with an energy source, can and will lead to self-replicating molecules such as RNA and DNA. On
Earth, it has lead to all the diverse life seen both in the fossil record and in creatures alive today, but realize only 1% or so of all species to ever exist still exist today.

Any questions?

If humanity is the point of it all, a central contention of the Judeao-Christian
tradition, seems like an awful waste of time and space just to get to us...

"See how it works? Science never purports to have all the answers; in fact, much of its strength lies in its clear admittance of the fact that it doesn't!"

And yet you claim to KNOW there is no god! Surely you must see the problem and the contradiction here. THIS is exactly WHY many people see hard core atheists as arrogant. By your own admission, science does not provide a complete understanding of our reality, yet you feel qualified to belittle others who seek a different path to understanding. How sad...

SpiritDance,

It's not "sad" at all, it's logic and you don't like where it leads.

If you have a puzzle before you, and it's got a LOT of pieces, and you have some of those pieces, you know part of the whole. But more than that, if you have enough of the pieces, you could even predict with accuracy what pieces you don't have. One step further will tell you what pieces you won't have.

Suppose it's a picture puzzle. You have assembled enough pieces to see there's a giraffe in there. Ok, now you don't know if the giraffe is riding a flying snickers bar or if he's just grazing on the african plains or what, but there is definately a giraffe.

A few more pieces, and we can rule out the flying snickers bar, and see what the giraffe is doing.

Before the puzzle is 100% complete, you know what you've got there.

You can throw all the puzzle pieces in a box an infinite number of times it will never come out a complete puzzle.

Certainly it will not have life.

brian and 99octate, you guys are my new best friends. thanks for sticking up for the rest of us free thinkers.

spiritdance

Atheists aren't people who know god doesn't exist, they are people who don't believe in god. Do you understand the difference? I'm an atheist. Not because I 100% know god doesn't exist, but because I don't believe in it. I don't see enough evidence. For example... do you know 100% that Cthulhu doesn't exist? No, you don't. He might. But do you BELIEVE in Cthulhu? Do you actually believe he exists and do you pray to him? No, you don't. That's the difference between knowing something doesn't exist and not believing in something.

Atheism is not arrogance, it is the most humble way of thinking. All it says is "I see the world around me and I learn from it. I don't add my own arrogant superstitious stories to what I experience around me."

Thinking that you know all the answers (God made it!) to this incredible universe is the height of arrogance.

Jeff

If it is rational enough for you to assume that "God" created the universe, then the next question is what created "God". If your answer is that "God" always existed then you are saying that you accept the idea that some things do not need a creator. Why not just skip a step and apply that same logic to the universe? Why add a step?

Peace

Under normal circumstances, Fred would not bother me neither and he'd be nothing more than a laughing stock but, there is nothing funny when he and his band of nut jobs picket funerals of fallen military members and other figures. Can you just imagine what goes through the minds of the families during one of the worse days of their lives? I imagine the mental turmoil cannot be measured.

wow, I had no idea they didn't like Jerry Falwell, I guess everybody outside of their membership is too liberal...

Even Falwell thought they were nuts and said so publicly. He lost Phelp's respect even if they believe in the same bull@!$%#.

If my son had died during his service, and this nut case and his band had shown up at the funeral, there would have been a murder investigation shortly thereafter.

actually, the 50-person congregation is compromised almost entirely of Phelps' family, so the church isn't financially independent, it only stays in operation because of the family law firm, which is how they really make their money. taxing the church wouldn't change anything, they could just dissolve that official organization and still continue their operations as a non-corporate entity. besides, the government can't discriminate between one cult being tax exempt than another, the only fair way would be to apply it to everybody.

Phelps has 13 children, and 11 of them have degrees in law. (scary chit!!) Still, the question that begs to be answered is, how do they get away with all of their hate speech?

because they're a family of lawyers who know how to push free speech to the legal limit, and for profit.

Hard to believe old man Fred was once a very successful civil rights attorney. He was disbarred from practicing law years ago for corruption and perjury. Many of his lawyer spawn have been disbarred, too.

No Baptist denomination will claim him, so he is not an ordained minister, either.

He is a sad carnival act, deserving of nothing but ridicule.

The separation of church and state makes it difficult for the government to say 'sorry we don't like what you are saying so we are going to tax you'. As much as I believe WBC is a group of terrorists they do have the right to exist and they do meet the requirements of being a 'church'.

Well said, David.

That's kind of part and parcel of ANY religion, though... Using the notion of "being on God's side" (a god who is, of course, imaginary) to justify all manner of hatred, bigotry, and general naughtiness.

Chad, you want to believe there is no God, that's fine with me. I happen to believe God does exist based on the Bible, historical writings from many people throughout history, and archaeological evidence. I don't want to impose my beliefs on anyone, and I don't believe people who don't believe in God are stupid or bad, ect. I would ask that you read 'Evidence that Demands a Verdict' and see what you think since you claim to be 'open minded and belive in science/evidence. At the end, you and the people who share your beliefs either 'choose' to believe or not!

OK so which version of the bible is the 'correct' one they contain a lot of different ideas/translations.

King James Version

Jefferson
New International Version
Revised Standard Version
The Living Bible
New Living Translation
World English Bible
New King James Version
New International Readers Editions
American Standard Version
New American Standard Version
Young's Literal Translation
Plain English Bible
New English Bible
Amplified Bible
Basic English Bible
Translator's NT
20th Century Bible
Modern King James Version
The Message
New Jerusalem Bible
Hebrew Names Version of World English Bible
Contemporary English Version
English Version for the Death
Good News Version
New Century Version
New Revised Standard Version
J. B. Phillips New Testament, modern English

Are just some of the English translations. What is the 'true' word of god?

My personal favorite is the Brick Testament.

Nah, the Phelps hates Catholics, even if Santorum appeals more to the Christian Right.

Only one side is fascist here, PA. And just like the Nazis, these ones are religious.

Judgmental much, Viewer_ready? I know several Atheists and committed Agnostics who have gotten to that point by serious thought, study and reading the Bible. I don't know anyone who is shallow or self-centered because their study has led them to that point.

However, I'm not sure the same could be said of your statement. Just because you believe something does not make it so, yet you demand they should believe it. Is that not self-centered and shallow?

To believe in that which is false always carries a price. To believe that death is an illusion--that your life is infinite--drastically cheapens the time you have on earth.

Shallow and conceit is the place of those whom think they are chosen ones--that they happen to believe in the RIGHT 'greater power'. Why the hell would ones soul be at stake and why would any god reward credulity?

Viewer_Ready - What have you got to lose but your soul?

Two questions:

1. What's a "soul"?
2. Sounds like you've never heard of the fallacy of Pascal's wager.

Speaking as someone who has read the Bible and the Quran, and is an atheist, I can say that I do not believe in God because I do not believe that there is an omnipresent being who controls and knows all, when there is so much inherently wrong with the human experience. I do not believe people should sit, and wait for God's will. If something goes wrong, or if something needs doing, then it lies to us, and waiting for a great saviour dto do it for us will accomplish nothing.

That being said, atheists do not need a$$holes like Dawkins as champions, since they merely just go out and try to prove all believers are wrong, and relish in it. Atheists need people who let believers continue believing, but to let them know, we're not all immoral douchebags who'll shiv you as soon as look at you.

Why not believe?

Easy: no evidence.

I would argue with the "let believers continue believing" statement. Where do you draw the line in delusional belief that it becomes dangerous to society? Dawkins and Harris point out, rightfully so, that holding a "belief" can be dangerous. When you truly "believe" something, you act differently as when you merely "wish" something true.

Any belief, religious or not, can be delusional and bad for society, as Nazism and Communism have attested. I believe in God but I also respect the choice or non-belief that atheists have embraced, and count several among my friends and acquaintances. They are rational and thoughtful people who don't denigrate all "believers" like others do. Some of the comments left here by atheists make it clear though that they believe that ALL religious belief is delusional and bad for society. They ridicule and mock. Anyone who is secure in their opinions has no need for this. Those who lack inner strength and security are the ones who lash out at others, be they atheists, fundamentalist Christians, or Muslim extremists. There is no difference.

And to Toasty McGrath: It's your choice to not believe because of a lack of "evidence", but that experience is yours, not the experience of all others. We humans are human in part precisely because we sense and experience things that go beyond the "rational". We do not need a sense of wonder, or art, music, poetry, or dance to survive as a species, yet we have these. They are food for that "non-existent soul" that people speak of. You may be able to dissect the human brain and put it under a microscope, or speak of neurons firing, etc., but you can't PROVE that the music of Bach is beautiful, or that a painting moves you. Human qualities like kindness and self sacrifice, may be explained "rationally", but you will never have proof that they exist, except by the lives that some people lead. Many see evidence of God in nature, and in human living also. The "lack of evidence" that you perceive is experienced by you. If you don't like the music of Bach, are you going to tell me that the wonder and beauty that I experience in it aren't real, because you have no personal "evidence" that they are so?

One of the best posts I have ever read on the subject. Excellent, Bravo, well stated and irrefutable

Honestly, couldn't have said it better my self. Nikolaus20 you have won the internet!

Lack of EMPIRICAL evidence, Niko. The same basis I assess all things. Having warm and fuzzy feelings doesn't count. Otherwise that would be proof that Darth Vader existed, or Wallace and Grommit.

And yes, religious belief IS dangerous to society, since it does that very thing: places blind faith and loyalty above reason and evidence. That never leads society to a good place, Niko.

Thank you! A second ago, I believed in God, but now I don't, thanks to your comment! You have clearly shown and demonstrated that money is everything, and that there is no God, or afterlife for that matter! How fortunate I am to have come across a comment filled with wise observations, left by Tarzan7. My books by Aristotle, Aquinas, and others are going out the window! Thank you for your opinions! They have changed my life forever! Yay!

Oh You Tarzan of such great infinite wisdom. When did the first drop of rain fall?

During the Hadean eon, roughly 4.6 billion years ago.

I would have said those hateful people. To be a Christian, one should attempt to be Christ-like, which they fall the farthest from being out of all the cults (religions) we have in this world. I prefer being atheist until someone can prove god(s) exist, any of them.

The violent crime nationwide nearly quadrupled between 1960 and its peak in 1991. Property crime more than doubled over the same period. Since 1993, crime has declined steeply. Several theories have been proposed to explain the cause.

1. One hypothesis suggests a causal link between legalized abortion and the drop in crime during the 1990s.
2. Another hypothesis suggests reduced lead exposure as the cause; Scholar Mark A.R. Kleiman writes: "Given the decrease in lead exposure among children since the 1980s and the estimated effects of lead on crime, reduced lead exposure could easily explain a very large proportion—certainly more than half—of the crime decrease of the 1994-2004 period. A careful statistical study relating local changes in lead exposure to local crime rates estimates the fraction of the crime decline due to lead reduction as greater than 90 percent.

There is no evidence regarding church attendance.

Uh, fuel? Crime has gone WAY down as church attendance has decreased. I mean, we're living in the safest time that has ever been, and only the future will have a lower crime rate.

I wouldn't lose any sleep over it, I'm a self-described agnostic

An example of self-described used as an adjective is in the phrase "self described genius," which means that the genius is the one who decided that he is a genius.

Sunbeam:

Good point. But in this case it makes sense to clarify that the lable was not imposed from others only.

Fuel: So why is it deemed appropriate to make this clear only in the case of an atheist? How insulting.

Personally I use the term "normal." You don't call someone who doesn't believe in fairies an a-fairy-ist, or a person who doesn't believe in Thor an a-Thor-ist. No, you call them normal.