“Sned . Going by the chapter titles, I believe the concerns have been extensively
addressed(and rebutted) elsewhere over the last 127 years.”
    Drew…since you have been reasonable and do have a sense of humor, and
have some of the same failings we have , let’s talk facts. The book is a free
download from Google books as a PDF. If you can’t download it get Opera or
Firefox and try that.  If not I’ll send you the PDF.
    Your belief that all the issues in the table of contents have been addressed
and rebutted is an opinion that implies that information gathered in the last
127 years is different than the information available to and gathered by Sloane.
That’s one helluvah an assumption. When you see Sloane’s bibliography you’ll
understand my statement. History hasn’t changed. And I asked you to quote
facts. We’re not morons and sheep here. Sloane collected all the works he
quoted and I wouldn’t doubt that they are in the many hundreds.
  If anything current research (and even some done earlier) makes good
arguments about the quotes of Jesus…that much of what is attributed to him
were never spoken by him. The entire incident with Jesus and the prostitute
“cast the first stone” has been proven to be totally false and made up…because
it is not found in the earliest versions of the bible. Jesus date of birth, census,
slaughter of innocents, birth in Bethlehem, escape to Egypt, rulers in power
when and where are all historically wrong as reported in the Bible (in one story) 
according to Roman and Jewish history. (Unless you think that the killing of
babies would go unnoticed.)

Archeological evidence of places and things do not confirm the existence of
Jesus,or what he said, or what happened to him. Period.

Please quote from one of you sources what archeological evidence proved that
the census requiring people to travel to their birth places took place….even
once in Roman history.

” Logically, there’s no problem if some pagan myths resembled the Christmas
story. Greek philosophers proposed concepts similar to atomic theory but that
doesn’t prove theory wrong.” 

This statement above is sheer silliness. The concept of small particles making
up matter has nothing to do with religion and mythology.

Aplolonius’s biography was written in 300 A.D. But Aplolonius lived in the time
of Christ. (allegedly for both) You can’t make any claims for one over the other.
Even Jesus admitted that others were doing what he was doing. Right? Do I
have to look it up? Sloane makes the argument that miraculous birth was THE
thing to ascribe to any holy man any where. It was IN. So was being the son of
god,  a saviour.

You can’t kiss that off any more than you can kiss off the idiotic genealogy of
Jesus.. passing down from David to Joseph when Judaism only views the
mother as the stream through which Judaism flows..and if Mary was a virgin
Joseph had nothing to do with anything. !! It proves that the writers of his
genealogy did not know Judaism!

3. “Myth and legend distorted the original events”—You’re wrong in this
paragraph too. The earliest writing about Jesus were Paul’s letters. He never
quotes Jesus and is only concerned with his resurrection and making his pagan
flock happy….when Jesus is quoted as telling his disciples to NOT go to the
pagans…(fixed at the end of Matthew to accommodate what Paul did.)

Without visiting your web site…Atheists versus Christians. Stalin was raised
Catholic as was Hitler. A leader can’t make everybody an atheist by telling them
to be so. Get real.  China…whatever they believe is not Christian and the own
us lock stock and Barrel. So much for God favoring us.

And please go to to NPR’s Speakingoffaith.org and listen to last week’s show
on stem cells…and meditation. You might learn something about humans in
general.

Mankers:

I do not believe in god.
I do not believe god does not exist.

It is rather simple.

I don’t know if a god exists. If gods do not exist it
really would be impossible to prove, because it is
and always will be impossible to prove an negative. 
If gods do exist, it should be possible to prove so. 
If gods exist and their existence is impossible to
prove, then the question is irrelevant - ie if gods
existed on a plane in such a way that precluded proof
existing on this plane of their existence on another
plane, then their existence would be inconsequential
to those on this plane.

I simply ask the believers in god, show me proof that
god exists.  It is the believers who make all sorts
of claims about this god.  I ask them to provide
proof.  I make no claims about the existence of this
god.

That being said, the bible as proof is simply not
enough.  Firstly it is a manufactured document, piece
mealed together out of various narratives that often
conflict.  The new testament was written by people
who never witnessed anything first hand re. Jesus etc
etc etc….furthermore the new testament does not
include books that early christians wrote and
believed were true.

The theology of the bible, of judaism, of islam, and
of christianity is self contradictory, and logically circular making reference to itself as proof of its
truth. IE: how do we know the bible is true? Because
god said it is! How do we know god exists? Because
the bible says so! and on and on and on….

Simply having read various bible versions, lots of
commentary on the bible, some commentary on the
koran, and even attempted to read the koran…I would
have to say that the god in those books is definitely
a fiction at best, and an out right deceptive lie at
worst - and that: The God of Judaic-Christian-Islam
does not exist.  Other gods are not currently a
concern of mine…when this evil fiction is conquered
I shall examine the other goods of man.

The history of mankind is littered with rejected
gods: Odin, Zeus, Manitou, The Inca, etc.  The great
swath of humanity accepts that these were
mythological creations to explain the unknown.  Every
christian, jew, and muslim believes their faith is
the right one, and everyone else who believes
otherwise is wrong.  If the Germanics, the Greeks,
and the Ojibway were wrong, then why would the
illiterate hebrews of the Sinai be right?

Sorry all you brainwashed believers: religion is
notable in it’s complete and utter failure to explain
anything. Judeo-christian-islam fails to explain:

- electricity
- genetics
- the role of semen in reproduction
- how the earth flys around the sun
- the true nature of the moon
- the role of blood in respiration
- respiration
- combustion
- the elements
- atoms
- molecules
- mental illness
- the role of germs in disease

The relgious texts of Christianity, Judaism, and
Islam explain nothing about the here and now.  They
are cults of the dead, obsessed with the so called
“after life” life.  They care not about the here and
now, and this makes them particularly dangerous.

Drew….I’d be very very happy if you simply downloaded “Bible Myths and their
parallels in other religions” free from Google Books, and simply commented on
the section dedicated to the nature of Jesus’ birth…in respect to its uniqueness,
meaning miraculous birth by a virgin etc.

And do take a careful look at the list of sources the author gathered on his
own, in days without electricity. It is astounding to me, in this day and age, that
anyone could believe in the birth story as evidence of anything but a fairy tale.

And please do not make so much out of soup kitchens when Christians have a
laundry list of murderous hate crimes to balance out the bowls of stew served.

Finally you have no idea what atheists support,  give to, or participate in so
please don’t draw conclusions based on things you can’t possibly know.

And to take that a step further…. look at secular Europe and see which
countries do the most for health care, longevity and education and giving
versus the religious U.S.

But do that after my first request. Thanks

Mankers, this from your Oct 20 comment:
—
You are incorrect that my enquiry :
mu1: the mean level of atheists’ proof that no god exists
mu2: the mean level of believers’ proof that a god exists
H0: mu1 - mu2 = 0
rests upon an assumption related to belief.
Mu1, mu2 and H0 don’t mention belief at all.
—
I am not sure what you mean by
1) ‘the mean level of proof’
2) ‘exists’
and certainly you have to define ‘god’ (maybe you did this in previous comments, please give a reference then).

But, with doing some ‘educated guessing’, I would arrive at an other hypothesis, namely:
H0: mu1 = mu2 = 0

Why would mu2 be 0? If believers had ‘proof’ they would be knowers rather than believers.

What about mu1 = 0 ? This comes from the slippery nature of ‘god believers’. It goes as follows:
Believer: My god is capable of a and b and wants c and d from humans (etc.).
Non-believer: But a contradicts b and if humans do c then they might cause misery for others.
2nd believer: Actually god is capable of e and f and wants g and h from humans.
Non-believer: Uh ???

Now you might conclude from mu1 = 0 that atheists must always be open to the possibility that a ‘god’ exists, provided that a definition can be given. This would make them ‘agnostics’.
I my personal case this would only be wordplay. For all intents and purposes I am an atheist, the possibility that a god (or several gods) exists is never under consideration in whatever I do.
If you want to call me an agnostic, be my guest.

Dear Archeon -
You have stated previously…

“Mankers my friend, I was actually ignoring your attempt to bring irrelevant stuff into this thread…..

Again, your hypothesis rests on the assumption that not believing in a god or gods, is equivalent to believing god or gods do not exist.

Listen and read carefully:

I do not believe in god.
I do not: believe god does not exist.”

I am gathering that you are an agnostic rather than an atheist. Q1: Am I correct?

Q2: Do you believe that god does exist?

Now YOU read carefully, please…

You are incorrect that my enquiry :

mu1: the mean level of atheists’ proof that no god exists
mu2: the mean level of believers’ proof that a god exists

H0: mu1 - mu2 = 0

rests upon an assumption related to belief. Mu1, mu2 and H0 don’t mention belief at all.

Now please confer with your cohorts and provide an intelligent response the second time around.

By the way, what could be more relevant than the provision of evidence as to whether god exists or not?

I will wait for a few more days and then provide the correct response to the enquiry, assuming that nobody wishes to provide input. I have invited all to respond. The silence is quite revealing.

Drew…you said you read Ehrman. Know what? I doubt it. Did you read his text
books, or more popular books. What was your take on this former right wing
Christian bright enough to learn Greek, think for himself…and provided tons of
observations that normal ministers and priest refuse to make.

I went tot your web site and scanned it. Cute. Lists of sources but few facts.
You do realize that you can quote authors here so why don’t you? And some of
your statements are sheer silliness. Let’s take the one about Christians
stopping the Holocaust.

First of all Hitler was and still is Roman Catholic. (Never excommunicated)
Germany was a Christian country and was France and Poland etc. Somehow you
failed to see that what started the Holocaust were Christians. What saw it to its
conclusion of killing 6 millions Jews Gays and Gypsies were Christians. The USA
got involved not as a religious entity.

Hate of Gays still exists in the Christian community. RCC still thinks it’s the one
true answer and was the home for anti semitism for 2000 years. It invented the
yellow star badge for Jews in Italy’s segregated Jewish Ghettos.

And your statement that christians live longer doesn’t quite fir this quote from
the NY Times…“With its many uninsured citizens and its relatively low life
expectancy, the United States has been relegated to the bottom of international
health scorecards.”  You see Europe is secular. They live longer.

Deal with it.

And here’s what you can’t prove. Now for scientists and religion
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

scientist from the national academy of sciences, 1998.

believers, 7%
agnostic, 20.8%
disbelieve, 72.2%

The best I could find for your point of view is an article that claims that 30% of
scientists believe in God. But you cant claim they are Christians. A 93% believe
in stem cell research while the RCC and right wing protestants are against it.

You are fooling no one here. When you can prove the soul exists come back.
Oh yes ...no contradictions in the bible. You can find a few listed
here.http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-
contradictions.html and then There’s Jesus telling his disciples to not go to the
heathens but teach only Jews…then reverses himself and tell people to go into
the world and baptize in his name.  Cute.

So Sappy….

If I said that god spoke to me and told me to do
certain things and I did them or wanted to do
them….would you think I was

a: delusional
b: lying
c: having a divine experience

Please explain your conclusions. Please assume that
you had no prior knowledge of my actual beliefs.

Now if I said that Manitou had appeared before me,
and led me on vision quest where I chose a guiding
animal totem that would protect me and help me chose
the correct path in life, would you:

a: accept my experience as fact and true
b: assume I was delusional
c: assume I was lying and had made it up

Please explain your conclusions.

The bible is quite frankly contradictory, and self
referencing, vague, and very often factually wrong.

while you are at it please explain why in the USA at
least the most homophobic and warmongering people
tend to be so called born again christians?  And
while you are at it explain why the most committed
and devout muslims strap bombs to thier bodies and
blow up themselves and anyone who happens to venture
near them?  These seem very happy people to me.

Only a moron would create a census where one would have to return to one’s
home to be counted. You site sources but provide no quotes. I won’t quote but
will tell you what I recall from “Putting Away Childish Things” And I paraphrase.
The only reason to return to Bethlehem would have been to pay taxes. In that
case Joseph, who was poor, would have been a landowner, and as such would
have had a place to stay. The author also points out how stupid it would have
been to put a nine months pregnant woman on a donkey just to be counted.
The whole scenario is bizarre and the whole story is filled with contradictions
historical inaccuracies, and borrowed myths (the three kings…star wrong
rulers..no evidence of a census etc.

Now perhaps you’d like to paraphrase your source.

or that there was never a census in the time of Jesus’ birth that required
people to return to their home communities [See Stark 2007, some of the more
recent books by Stroebel, or other sources.]

Archeon - Thank you for the response. First of all, the hypothesis mentions nothing of the Abrahamic-based faiths. Why bring them into the dicussion? Secondly, your writing does nothing to help us reject (or fail to reject)the null hypothesis. Please solicit the input of your cohorts on this site, and feel free to solicit Sam Harris’ input as well. I would be most interested, and I think his response might enlighten all of us. I sincerely hope that Frank Goodman, Tom Edgar, Annieup09, Akira, SNED, Glenno, Simpleman and ALL others will provide their input relative to the hypothesis over the next few days.

AGAIN:

not believing in a god/s is not the same as believing
in the nonexistence of a god/s.

Believing that god/s does not exist is obviously a
belief and like believing in a a god/s requires
faith.

However NOT believing in a specific god/s, and asking
for proof of god/s existence is not faith based, but
might as is in my case be based on reason and logic.

The three abrahamic faiths claim that their god is
the only god, that this god is all seeing (into the
past as well as the future), all knowing (know
everything that is, was, and could have been), all powerful (can do ANYTHING), and is everywhere and
nowhere.  Each see their god and their faith as the
one true faith, the only way to know god, the only
way to achieve an everlasting “life” in the afterlife
(in paradise).  They claim as the source of truth the
bible, the torah, and the koran.  They claim that
everything that men (read: humans) need to know, and
all the rules they need to live by are contained
within the pages of these books.  In short they each
believe (actually their pious devout devotees
believe) that their texts, their god, their faith are
the only way and the only truth, and everyone else is
wrong, all the other gods are false, the other
prophets are false, etc etc.  Each of these three
makes the same claim, which one is the right one? 
Each claims the same god…but which one is the right
one?

Extend this to the various factions within each of
the three faiths, and you end up with thousands and
perhaps 10s of thousands of varying, differing, and
opposing faiths…which of these is correct?  How do
we tell?

Now many would say “well the differences are minor”. 
Well quite frankly that is bull crap.  The
differences are major, esp when you consider the dire consequences the god of abraham reserves for the
believers and followers of false gods and prophets. 
The shia muslims believe the sunni are not muslims at
all (and visa versa), catholics don’t believe mormons
are christians, and some born again evangelicals
don’t believe catholics are christians, etc etc
etc…I think every get where I am going with this.

Concidering that humans have fought wars, committed
genocides, murdered, enslaved, and destroyed to prove
that their particular version of the great truth was
the absolute correct one, the differences clearly are
not “minor”.

So of the believers I ask once again: which version
of god is the one that exists, which version of the
written truth and law is the correct one. Please
explain why the versions you claim are the correct,
right, and true ones are such?  Please offer proof
and evidence of your claim.

I await your replies.

I would like to submit a null hypothesis for the board’s research and/or comment…

mu1: the mean level of atheists’ proof that no god exists

mu2: the mean level of believers’ proof that a god exists

H0: mu1 - mu2 = 0

Tom…a P.S.

I doubt that any of us have read you without some suspicion that you are indeed
Frank. That’s how bad it was and is. But we do look forward to your on target
meritorious posts and perhaps a joke here and there..all written with style, grace,
grammatical correctness and straight arrow language.

Tom…..let’s put it this way.

I didn’t throw Frank or TWIMC off this site. The moderators did ...for all the right
reasons.

Take it up with them.

Read the other posts here that complained about both of them.

Now I’m done responding to your posts about Frank and or TWIMC.

You sound like a reasonable smart person.  Stay hear and enjoy. And do or don;‘t
believe all of us who knew those two better than you do or did.

:

1. An extensive body of psychological research indicates that those who are
religiously active are indeed happier and healthier

The religious are more social. Period. It has nothing to do with God. Recent
research also indicated that those who ask for the most medical (and costly)
care in dying are the religious.(Maybe fear of being wrong?)

2. Slavery was everywhere accepted until Christianity became influential. 
Those opposing slavery cited the Bible far more often than those defending
slavery.

This is sheer silliness. South America received ten times the number of slaves
as North America all with the blessing of the RCChurch. To make statistical
claims about who stopped it is also weak. Slavery was accepted in Jesus’ times
and he said nothing   against it. (After all he was a Jew not a Christian)

3. Scientists are as likely to be religious and active in churches as the general
population;A total crock. Scientists are raised on uncertainty. Are raised to
question and seek proof. To believe in the magic of christianity is not in their
bones. Secondly your sources must show how their conclusions are derived.

4. A surprising amount of non-Biblical evidence points towards the existence
of Jesus—

Not one writer of the NT ever saw or spoke to Jesus. The only other non biblical
reference is from Jospephus,  a devote Jew who also wrote long after the death
of Jesus, and one of his quotes (claiming Jesus holiness) was obviously
rewritten as were many of the stories of Jesus

5. Bible contradictory? There was no census in the time of Jesus claimed birth.
Nor was there ever a census as described which required people to travel from
their current homes to the place of birth..that would have been as stupid idea
then as it would be today. Didn’t happen. And you can’t prove otherwise.

And neither Mark Matthew or Luke wrote in Jesus language and obviously were
unaware of well recorded Roman history..whichis why you can’t prove it
otherwise.

Suggested reading…Bible Myths and their parallels in other religions free from
Google Books, anything from Professor Bart D. Ehrman - Distinguished
Professor…on You tube…many bool “Misquoting Jesus” Jesus” And for the heck
of it another man who could raise the dead in Jesus’ time The Life of Apolonius
of Tyanaa by Philostratus also free from Google. Oh yes “Putting Away childish
things” by Utta Ranken Heinemann….the only woman to ever hold the chair of
religion in a German Catholic University. (Sp?)

s

So Drew, are you saying only Christians are
religious?  or rather only Christianity is a
religion?  I thought we were talking about RELIGION,
which is why i deride Islam as much a i do Christianity.

There is NO non biblical proof or evidence of the existence of a man name JESUS.  There simply isn’t.

Sorry scientists are more likely to not believe in
fairy tales and mythology.

Sorry the books you list are merely religious
propaganda.

I guess you don’t think catholics are christians?

I like the bridge parable…..you forget that most of
us have seen and used bridges, we also have
experience that allows us to make a judgment as to
the relative worth of crossing the bridge or not and
facing the tigers…this is not at all like the leap
of faith required to believe the drivel written in a
book that has been thrice translated that advocate we
believe things we have never seen, things that in
common experience are fantastical.  Hoping the bridge
will hold is not the same as having faith it will
hold.  Making a judgement that the risk of crossing
the bridge is less than the risk of facing the tigers
is not a leap of faith, it is in fact a reasoned
rational choice.

We have not seen people turn water in to wine. We
have not seen people destroy great defensive walls by
using the sound of trumpets, we have not seen any one
live to be 800, we have not seen anyone walk on
water, we have not seen a miraculous basket where
unending amounts of bread and fish can be taken from.

In my experience, those who claim to have faith are
much less happy than I a non believer.

Again, you make the mistake of assuming that atheists
are non believers in christ.  Atheists are non
believers…..in any of the so called “gods”.  Please
don’t assume that your religion is so special that it
alone gets attacked by atheists, an-theists, and
anti-theists.  All the religions get the same
treatment from us.

I don’t say “christianity is evil”, I say RELIGION is
evil.

Drew… it appears to me, that judging by the statistics of only 40% of the
people approving of universal healthcare that something is amiss in the
churches. The priests and reverends of the world are not pounding their fists in
agreement with the concept of UHC and the need to share the burdens. After
all Jesus claimed that his first assignment was aid the poor and suffering. If
80% of more of this country believe in a Christian God…where’s the support for
one of Jesus’ most important tasks?

Let me provide a guess. It’s the 80 20 rule (80% of beer is consumed by 20% of
the beer drinkers) applied to the clergy. ...the 80 20 rule applies to all sorts of
things. My guess is that 80% of the money brought in by most churches comes
from 20% of the congregation. The folks with the money that you complain
about.

These are the small business owners and corporate big wigs…and the doctors
and the lawyers. And given their clout….they only hear on Sunday morning
what they want to hear. In other words the revs stay on message for the 20%
giving the 80% ..whjile making the r 80%  giving the 20% happy. ( NPR gets
more than 90% of its donations from 10% of the listeners).

Lawyers want unlimited trial awards for malpractice. Small business owners
don’t need the paperwork, nor the financial stress.(I happen to agree with that
one) and the ministers can put the fear of socialism into the hearts of the
congregation by just saying the word somewhere.“There will be a coffee
socialism…oops social in the recovery room I mean rec room right after the
service…..”

God has little to do with your claims of health. Prayer has been proven to not
only not work but to worsen a patient. When they know they are being prayed
for they feel stressed out by a need to feel better so they get worse. Christian
missionaries have destroyed cultures in the need to convert the world…which
anyone can see will never ever happen…which should be some cause for
thought.

Drew… it appears to me, that judging by the statistics of only 40% of the
people approving of universal healthcare that something is amiss in the
churches. The priests and reverends of the world are not pounding their fists in
agreement with the concept of UHC and the need to share the burdens. After
all Jesus claimed that his first assignment was aid the poor and suffering. If
80% of more of this country believe in a Christian God…where’s the support for
one of Jesus’ most important tasks?

Let me provide a guess. It’s the 80 20 rule (80% of beer is consumed by 20% of
the beer drinkers) applied to the clergy. ...the 80 20 rule applies to all sorts of
things. My guess is that 80% of the money brought in by most churches comes
from 20% of the congregation. The folks with the money that you complain
about.

These are the small business owners and corporate big wigs…and the doctors
and the lawyers. And given their clout….they only hear on Sunday morning
what they want to hear. In other words the revs stay on message for the 20%
giving the 80% ..whjile making the r 80%  giving the 20% happy. ( NPR gets
more than 90% of its donations from 10% of the listeners).

Lawyers want unlimited trial awards for malpractice. Small business owners
don’t need the paperwork, nor the financial stress.(I happen to agree with that
one) and the ministers can put the fear of socialism into the hearts of the
congregation by just saying the word somewhere.“There will be a coffee
socialism…oops social in the recovery room I mean rec room right after the
service…..”

God has little to do with your claims of health. Prayer has been proven to not
only not work but to worsen a patient. When they know they are being prayed
for they feel stressed out by a need to feel better so they get worse. Christian
missionaries have destroyed cultures in the need to convert the world…which
anyone can see will never ever happen…which should be come cause for
thought.

We encourage lively debates on our comment sections; however, comments need to stick to a few basic guidelines in keeping with our comment policy. You can
find it here for a refresher. Thanks.

Tom…what you don’t realize is that the Sam Harris essay hasn’t been
discussed here is ages, but was a ploy by your friend to sound
legitimate…again, because we were on to him again. Period.

Archeon…apparently there is a very thick book being published this week on
ID by an author who is a deist, but claims that the book does not promote his
own beliefs but that ID has scientific merit in that DNA is digital and contains
information.

I personally have no problem with the possibility that life on this planet came
from a superior alien race….(somehow)

I just have a problem with the concept of one or more Gods coming into
existence with all information..all at once.

Also there have been studies that show that some religious might live a year or
two longer because they are more social and have a greater support group,
while atheists, being more independent and less organized have a smaller
social support group.  People who meditate are also better off. That’s all
understandable…but it ain’t god answering prayers that adds the years…it’s the
social structure…and besides…everybody dies anyway..so Xtians…enjoy those
last two years being incontinent. God’s gifts are great! Oh and let’s not forget
the 23 million kids that die every year from malnutrition. What a Guy!

Drew.

I do not understand your query.  The horrors of the present, or past times has nothing to do with “Atheism”.  What manifesto?  There is no ideological. political of philosophical path for which a book of rules or manifesto can be written. There is only one simple statement. to which nothing can be deducted nor added.

  ATHEISTS DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE EXISTENCE OF GODS.

Atheists can, and are Socialists, Capitalists, and everything between and beyond. There is no unifying
philosophy other than.  Never having been shown evidence supporting the existence of a God we choose not to believe in the existence of something dreamed up in the mind of a semi literate leader of nomadic shepherds in the Middle East, or his equivalent, in other parts of the world .

There is no way to prove the existence of something that doesn’t exist to prove it has no existence.
On the other hand we do seriously ask you to present your evidence based substantiation of your beliefs, plus verifiable proof for the claimed existence of one of the many Gods. (Hinduism I believe has over a million.)  If you can show one scintilla of evidence, not apocryphal, personal (schizoid) experiences, or unidentifiable figures on burnt toast. Every atheist will join with you and the holy rollers.

Tom, I see you responded to one of my earlier posts. 
I was not using “truth” in the same manner as Frank.

“honouring the truth” was to imply that the narrative
of the site, and in particular the comments should be
respected, even if they (the comments) are
distasteful and in violation of the rules.  If
comments are removed from the historical record of
the site, or rather if it is the policy to remove
comments, the worth of the remaining “acceptable”
comments is lessened,

Religious groups, churches, political movements, and
totalitarian states all try to control the historical
narrative by removing commentators that violate the
“acceptable” - “Acceptable” in this case means that
which the powers withing these organizations have
determined to further the needs of the organization.

It is ironic to me that Truthdig, is trying to redact
history while the articles within the site deride the
states attempt to do the same.  Slice and dice how
you like, but removing comments from the historical
record is redacting history.

Drew, science and reason do support the atheist
position.
Slavery, racism, genocide, ethnocide, religiocide
were all supported by “religious” people. Slavery did
not end in the USA because the south suddenly got
religion and adopted the ideas of Jesus.

Here in Canada we had religious institutions running
residential schools for natives.  These schools were
hell holes of physical, mental, and sexual abuse -
they were run by priests, ministers, monks, and nuns.

You are in fact wrong when you suggest religious
commitment brings great life satisfaction and mental
health, it does not.

Fact: there is no non biblical evidence Jesus existed
Fact: the bible is a contradictory document.
Fact: the bible has logical inconsistencies.
Fact: Mohamed was a thief, murderer, and pedophile.

I could go on but what is the point….

Because I complained about Frank and TWIMC they were removed and I was
told why…

and I was told why Annie was removed….but not because of me but as a result
of asking the moderators to take a look at what others were saying about
Frank/MTWIC…which they did and in the process didn’t like some of Annie’s
more volatile posts.

It’s a small crew that moderate the whole web site..and there are rules. Foul
language isn’t thje problem it’s some of the personal attacks…and the content
of those attacks.

And then there’s the abuse of the website itself..AND THE MODERATORS
AGREED with what we all thought was abuse. Sorry Tom we’ve been here for
years and you haven’t nor would I recommend that you waste the hours and
hours it would take to make you a believer…by reading all the crap that was
dumped on this site.

Look at that…the powers that be barred a couple of
folks, erased a bunch of posts..and voila! - this
thread seems to have died the death of mundacity.

God is still dead.
Jesus is a fiction.
Mohammed was an ass.
The pope is a closet pedophile.
Billy Graham is an idiot.

Creationism is for stupid people.
Intelligent design is for even more stupid people.

All religion is silly at best, stupid at worst, and
generally so mundane that it boggles the mind that
believers are not committing suicide en mass.

I could care less about religion, faith, and
believers if they weren’t so dangerous to liberty,
joy, and bliss.  They cultivate a fetish for the puerile, obscene, cruel, and perverse.

Was Frank barred from this forum?  How would we know? 
Truthdig does not announce who has been barred and
why.  It is all beginning to remind me of how
religion keeps sanitizing itself to reflect the
sensibilities of the age. (and doing this without
repudiating that within it that go against the ethos
of the age - ie it is schizophrenic at best
hypocritical at worst.)

What I mean to say is this, those coming here for the
first time have no idea of the discussion that preceded their arrival if those discussions are
redacted/erased/unmade or of the people who preceded
them if those people are barred, and their comments
errased.  And so it is with faith and religion -
todays christians would have us believe witch burning
never happened.

Good nite.

I want Annie back.

Well I tried….  I took advice,,,,,,,, I went back a few pages…..... Still can’t see why Frank is disbarred….... Can’t see why y’all carried on discussing.  Much ado about nothing.

Sned et al.  O K so on religion I am as one with you.
On Frank, at a personal level I diverge.
My latest communique was two minutes ago I had offered to send Tazin Abdullah’s “Not without my make up” A beautifully written article, he however had just received it from a Muslim friend.  I have had it for a considerable time and would willingly share it.

I only write of this to show that I, an avowed, and life long atheist, can have dialogue with those of countering opinions without animus, indeed even a long distance friendship. Not much different to those friends here who are SDA. I tell them their beliefs to me are childish, they in turn avow I will die to regret my ways. My elder son died only two weeks ago, cremated but one week, and they tell me he will be re-assembled and we will meet again.  I only replied that I hope it would be minus his cancer and that I would be re-incarnated as I was at twenty three, I’m not to keen on the body I have at eighty three.No we would all be brought back in our prime.
My mind boggles my mother died at an age much younger than am I now. So I’m probably to be re-united with a mother younger than my late wife. How can you argue with this mentality.?

Even on my alternate atheist site there are so often theists of all colours who are there to push a particular ideology, most depart very quickly, very few are convinced of the errors they espouse. This would be a very dull show without the clowns.  I agree with you, and you with me.  What’s left?

Frank can be a little evangelical in his philosophising but aren’t some atheists also?
Isn’t this, and other sites the equivalent of the Kingdom Halls, Meeting Houses and Churches? It is our meeting place for like minds, and reinforcing our commitment to “Non Belief”.  The Bible Tracts, as far as I’m concerned, is replaced by my magazine from the Australian Skeptics Association an organisation of which I have been a long time member.
I freely admit that, in my opinion the “Mag” contains much more intelligent reading. Whilst the publication often prints items from people who are not atheists, and also those with diverging opinions, something not seen in religious papers, I have never heard of any one being banned for being
out of step with the general trend. I will also admit I have never seen an article therein that was proselytising.

I’ll presume that all would agree that we would rather have a world without religion, our history is replete with the atrocities committed in the names of the many Gods.  Counterbalancing that are the good works and charities from many religious organisations.  Some can even point to never having been involved with the former whilst regularly extolled for the latter. e.g. Quakers, even some R C’s Sisters of Mercy.

Would the world be a better place if it was all atheist?  In Australia we have had leaders and many Politicians , atheist, agnostic,rationalists.  I can’t recall that their atheism etc., made the least bit of difference, they were still Politicians. Generally the particular belief or lack doesn’t seem, in the main, to make a great deal of difference.
There have been isolated cases, especially in the area of abortion, euthanasia,divorce where religious intolerance has been allowed to interfere in government.  This intolerance with its influence form another country is to be deplored but would total atheism really make a difference?  I would hope
so, but doubt it.

Wishing for Annie’s return, I do, does seem a little
biased without Frank too. But I’ll settle for my occasional letter from and to him. I’d even welcome Annie also.  She knows where to write.

Tom…

You truly don’t understand the degree to which Frank Goodman abused this
sight, not in the name of intelligence, but in the name of arrogance. This is a
sight about atheism not Frank Goodmanism, and that’s what he did. You would
have to personally go back months to read his posts that brought nothing to
the topic, and which not one of us understood because we time and again
proved that it made no sense…and even if it could be argued that it made
sense, it didn’t mean anything. God can be truth or green. So what? We have
seen no proof that god exists.

Secondly he refused to answer questions. So he was only interested in
monologue not dialogue. And he insulted the intelligence of all who post here
on top of not wanting to participate. Why? Because we didn’t get Franks theory.
Annie has two good reasons to be angry with the world of believers…probably
even more, which I need not discuss here. We know her for what she is. We
ignore the bitterness because we understood her. She also know the bible
better than anyone who has ever posted here.

Yes it would be nice to ignore people like Frank. We didn’t. But please don’t go
into the gentleman crap about Frank. He was no gentleman here not because
he didn’t use off color language but because of his arrogance.

Frank is no longer a topic for me or for this web site. Don’t give us the Nazi
business. It doesn’t ring true. So please get over it.
This is a moderated web site…. with some rules. You argue that any idiot
should be allowed to post anything here. Sorry. Not the case. They read Frank’s
stuff…they read TWIMC stuff and saw that it made no sense.

Had the moderators listened to some of us earlier Frank and TWIMC would
have been tossed long before Annie reached a boiling point. It also seems that
Simpleman might have been tossed too, but I hope he’s just away from his
computer.

This is not an asylum. This is not day care. This is not Disney World. Please
enjoy your relationship with Frank….but here no one is going to invite him to a
Thanksgiving dinner..yet we’re all thankful he’s gone. We’re not happy that
Annie is gone.

There are other sites.  All About.com atheism being one that I regularly visit.  There, often enough, contributors of various beliefs who visit to annoy, or submit here childish accusation, beliefs etc.  Some are even halfway intelligent but all eventually capitulate when confronted with either ridicule or contrary evidence so. Why banning,disenfranchising, or to put it another way, excommunicating?

Annie has been removed? I hadn’t realised.  Why?
Apart from her use of colourful language there is substance to her submissions even if you do not agree
with the arguments or the language.
I would point out that nowhere did I say that people should not use expletives that I find unnecessary.  Just my opinions that, to me they are not needed and in my opinion this is so for others,  if they disagree so be it, and I’ll concede they do find the need.  If you found Frank tedious then ignore the contributions.  Now I write to him personally and his letters to me are informative, sometimes with a biting wit, and always courteous. He has a vast experience, especially in the Middle East, whilst serving his country, a much loftier mind, and acquired knowledge than the average academic.
To ban such as he is your personal loss as you could gain from him as I have.  You don’t have to agree, I certainly don’t, on religious matters, but one way of knowing the opposition is to listen. If America, and its allies, had done this in the past we wouldn’t be facing such a terrible present, and future.  Nor would we reaping so much hatred towards the kind of regime that America, and once again, its allies, keeps trying to impose, for their own good, upon reluctant people.

In short listen and learn. Ban, just as the Brown Shirts did on Kristal Nacht, in Nazi Germany, then all you’ll ever know is what you want to know not what you could know. The Catholic Church did just this in the Dark Ages and intellectual progress stood still.  In some areas all religions stifle the progression of knowledge..  It bodes not too well that some atheists would adopt the same unedifying
procedures.

The Catholic church also attempted to create a redacted
history.

I received an interesting email from Truthdig re my
post about redacting the past posts of banned
contributors to these forums/comments.  The
justification seems to be that this is a common
practice, and that they don’t see Truthdig as a free
for all.  Of course my issue with the removal of
posts, is with “truth”, ie - by removing posts it
seems to me that the truth narrative is destoryed.

I must question the worth of sites like Truthdig, if
I can’t be certain that the content of commentators
is censored.  I accept that the actual content of the
site, ie the articles will reflect the nature,
desire, politics, ethos, and phylosophy of the
editors - I don’t expect the comments to.

Again I don’t know why I expected something else
here.  I have always suspected that this was done
(elswhere but not here), I just chose to believe that
digging for the truth, actually meant honouring the
truth.

To Tom

You have no idea how frustrating it can get to have Frank post here for months
on end…having no one agree with him then he leaves and comes back and
does it all over again.

Yes I agree with you that ignoring them would be nice. Tried it myself. But if
one person responds to a post…that’s all it takes for another barrage of drool.

From now on when a character like Frank comes on we’ll get rid of him
sooner…or maybe this site will just shut down for lack of participation.

Archeon…I was told why Annie was tossed….. but I don’t think they should
have done it based on a complaint I made about TWIMC. I’ll try to contact her
and get her back. She’s so smart that I hate to see someone like Frank get her
riled up when he should have been tossed early on.

Frank….thanks for nothing. You’ve lost your toy.

If posts permitted in the past have now been removed I am forced to conclude that Truthdig will sanitze it’s history in the same manner the Soviet and Red China governments expunged non-persons form thier histories.  It also calls to mind Orwell and 1984…..

It would be ironic if forums that claim to want truth and light and open discussion, censor and redact history.  Free speech is a bitch…sometimes you have to read and hear stuff you don’t like.  Then again, this is perhaps the only way to learn about new stuff..by exposure to the uncomfortable and offensive.

Oh well, I don’t know why I expected anything more.

So Tom my pedantic friend exactly what does: “AND NEVER BE INVOLVED WITH RELIGION PER SE” mean?  I don’t undestand the use of “per se”.

For me at least, believing is a dogma and is rooted in traditions based on fancy, fiction, and lies.  As regards the various forms and itterations of the abrahamic drivel, they are one.  And ANY one who’s belief in a god, supreme being, etc is rooted in this tradition is a follower of a religion per se.

I am Canadian, and here the need for people to express thier belief in god, etc, in everyday interactions is quite relaxed.  In fact, it is concidered quite “pushy” if one does so.  Very few people here will when tradgedy strikes, invoke that a belief in god, or jesus, or ahla, or mohamed, as “helping” them through it.  Most Canadians believe in the power of themselves to survive.  That being said, there is a small minority of believers who, constantly want to force god into school, government, etc.  Even here, evanglelcals are a constant irritant with their shrill crys of: “the end is nigh, repent now”.

We have also had attempts by islamic fundamentalists to enshrine sharia law as part of Ontario family law.  Interestingly this was most strenously opposed by muslim women in Ontario, besides being throughly rejected by the pop in general.

By and large, ones religion plays little role in political commentary, elections, etc.  The religious convictions of political candidates only comes to play, when they themselves insist on making it part of their persona. IE those that constantly thank god, talk about how the belief in god/jesus/mohammed/etc informs their choices etc.  For those who keep thier religion private, thier religion is private.

So much like Oz, Canada is fairly religiously laid back.  Also people here who are atheists, will freely admit it when asked.  There are very many atheists here.

Archeon…..it appears the all of TWIMC posts have been removed from this
page by the “Moderators” But it’s also possible that they have also removed
Annie’s recent posts and possibly Simpleman’s.That’s partly my fault because I
suggested that they moderators listen not just to me about TWIMC but look at
what the others say. Hopefully that’s not true, but if neither appear here in the
next day or so I think we should both complain.

PS Thanks for your note on Islam. You made your point…and I will do some
research. On Belief and religion. I think “religion” must be defined. In my book
religion is a system of beliefs that ascribe to a higher power certain moral
behaviors or attitudes…that believers must ascribe to. With that definition one
need not be religious to be a believer and I have a friend who fits that
definition to a T. One can have a sense that a higher power exists or might
exist but follow no group or moral code that is believer based.“I think there is a
higher power but I don’t know what it is or means” Or I believe there is a god,
but I don’t see that it micro manages the world answers prayers..etc (A
Unitarian style belief)...which as a “church” welcomes atheists.

Tom Edgar, I am glad that you are on the side of
truth, ie atheism, and apologize if I missinterpreted
what you had written to imply you had some sort of
faith, religion, or other spiritual hangup.

That being said, I disagree that one can be a
believer and not be religious.  Believing is
religion.  Just because a person does not participate
in an organized ritual, does not mean that person is
not religious.

I don’t really attack believers I merely use words. 
I do seek to attack belief, faith, religion, jesus,
mohammed, god, and all the other superstitious crap
that is peddled by pseudo intellectual religious
fakers.  Yes, I will say it: religion is stupid, and
having faith, believing in god, etc, is stupid,
silly, and possibly evil.

Franks problem is that he conflates truth and god,
diluting the meaning of the former and elevating the
meaning of the latter.

Glenno’s problem is that he assumes everyone “knows”
the truth of the bible, and fails to see that using a
text that is internally contradictory, externally
false, to prove the existence of an unseen
supernatural father figure is logically impossible.

Your problem is that you are unnecessarily fixated on
the use of adult, profane, and so called obscene
language.  You cast aspersions on those who use words
you would not, revealing unintentionally perhaps, the
conventionality of your thinking. IE - you like Frank
use the individual words (fuck, asshole, fucktard,
moron, idiot…etc) people use to come to a
conclusion as to their worth as humans, rather than
paying attention to the substance of what they are
saying.  I suggest that you let people speak and
write as they wish and see fit.  If you don’t want to
use certain words, fine - but this choice does not
elevate you to some higher intellectual or moral
plane.

BTW - don’t assume I am American, or that I live in
America.  I am 48, and have been a committed atheist
for 42 years…..yes since I was 6.

SNED my friend, you don’t need me to explain the
koran and the the idiot religion of islam.  I would
suggest you start with a google search, there is much
on the web about islam.  The pro-islam sites are such
obvious drivel, but they do work as humour.  The con-
islam sites, esp those by former (it is impossible to
be a “former” muslim according to Mohammed, the
koran, etc) muslims are more informative.  I
particularly like the “the koran can only be
understood if read in the original Arabic”, yes god
is an arab.  This of course has made islam a slave to
the barbaric tribal/clan culture of arabia.  This is
were it’s cruelty, small mindedness, misogyny, and
stupidity come from. (Not that the tribal/clan
culture of Arabia is any more so than any tribal/clan
culture anywhere….Tribal/clan cultures are by and
large xenophobic, rasict, ethnocentric, sexually
repressed, and afraid female sexual power. IE they
are afraid of women who bleed.  This has been partly
due to the fact that until recently is was impossible
to tell who the father was of any child.  Without
strict control of who has access to a woman it was
not possible to know if the husband was the father of
any or all the children a woman bore.) Tribal/clan
cultures have fetish about blood lines.  Primitive
male based societies also tend to see women as mere
“vessels” or “fields” in which the far more noble man
plants his “seed”.  Thus it is the man who determines
the blood lines, the woman is nothing more than a
cow, or ewe, bitch.  The fact that women can inspire
such passion and lust in men also scares men who are
slaves to their dicks.

All women like eve are manipulators and temptresses,
all men like adam are weak dolts who can barely chew
gum and walk at the same time…how can we expect
them to resist the temptations of the flesh (women),
who naturally are sluts and whores.(for those who
might not understand: the last few sentences are
intended to be ironic sarcasm)

I have a Koran…but I don’t like wasting time…which is why I never read the OT.
Archeon said some powerful things…and I thought he could add some detail to
the accusations.

I’m sure I can find plenty of condensed stuff right on line and will do so.

Archeon.

I’m not sure if you are just being deliberately offensive or just do not read English clearly.

My first letter, third paragraph said.

I am an octogenarian, WW2 vet. LIFELONG ATHEIST.

My second letter re-iterated this and furthermore to
deny the accusation that I was a pseudonym for Frank gave verifying evidence to the contrary.

It seems the conversation somehow has a fixation on Frank Gardner, not on his submissions, I could be wrong. Because I find the characterisation here of Frank is at variance with the person to whom I personally correspond, it somehow makes me fair game for character assassination also.

May I repeat I am an atheist, probably for longer than any of you. It appears another letter did not surface so for the record and forgive if I repeat.
I was married by a civil celebrant and took the affirmation.  My children have never been baptised. My wife’s funeral was conducted by myself without reference to religion (She was a Quaker).  My eldest son’s funeral, only last week, I was unable to attend so I paid for a civil celebrant to M C the proceedings.

Archeo.  Once again you read incorrectly.  I did NOT say believers were not religious. I said They can be “Believers and not involved with religion per se.”
That is like Frank.  Believe, conditionally, but never go to a formal religious gatherings nor identify with any set of religious people. NOT LIKE TOM EDGAR WHO IS AN ATHEIST & AGREES WITH HARRIS AND, STRANGELY, WITH ARCHEON.

Archeon, you could do me a favor. You’ve had some strong words about Islam. I
have not studied it. Have not read the Koran.
Is it possible for you to briefly explain some of your claims. I do understand how
women are mistreated with honor slaying etc…but that’s about it.

Thanks

I agree SNED, I find the constant suggestion that atheism is somehow “less” than believing quite offensive.

I find the suggestion that atheists are somehow lacking in morality and ethics very offensive.  I also find it to be a “personal” attack on me.  I don’t know how suggesting that I am a moral cretin because I don’t believe in a god and specifically the god of abraham can’t be taken personally, nor how it can’t be meant personally.

Yet, I think those that come here to debate me, to discuss with me, to put me down even, should be able to do so, and should be allowed to use any language, any tactics they like.  I am man enough to take it, and don’t need to go running to mommmy when others don’t bend to me will and sensibilities.

Perhaps we can get this back on track and talk about believing, non-believing, religion, faith, the holy texts, and their merits.  I see those who run out of room to move, those who can’t counter the arguments, start to fixate on the trivial: language, spelling, and grammar.

I don’t think, religion, faith, and belief in a supernatural being who created this world can be supported by logic, observation, or reason.  I don’t think creationism, ID, or it’s variants came be supported either.  I don’t think the holy texts bible, torah, koran and their associated “interpretive” texts are holy (but rather that they are “holey”, nor are they very good moral or ethical guides.  I have my reasons, which I have explained several times throughout this forum, I which I will happily explain again to anyone who askes.

Glenno, Frank, TWIMC, and Tom Edgar and people like them who come here to merely to toss out their intellectual diahrea, get upset when those who disagree stop taking them seriously after they have been shown the intellectual traps they set for themselves.  This gets a bit tedious at times and a simple: “Fuck off and die!” is all that some of us care to offer as a responce at times to such idiotic self important crap. IF this is censored here at truthdig, perhaps I should assume that “Truthdig” is no longer interested in digging for the truth.  As long as it is legal, perhaps the Truthdig masters should just leave things be.  Last I heard, calling someone an “asshole”, “moron”, or “idiot” was still legal.  Inciting violence, is not legal, I have however not seen any of that here…no one has advocated killing all the believers just killing belief.

Good Day.

I notice a bit of quiet.

hmmmmm

My only comment on four letter words is that it is considered “adult
language”...which I find rather amusing. Reserved for those over 18 I assume?
(Frank was over four times that age…but he did act childishly didn’t he..My
opinion of course)

But when a minister stands up and says in no uncertain terms that atheists
are the anti christs and are therefore “evil”...that four letter word is okay..and
okay here.

To call Christians infidels is okay too. And I assume that all Muslims, Jews and
Buddhists are anti Christs and evil among right wing Christians.

But using a terms that mean fornication and such….warrants censure….when
atheists have been censured for thinking from, it seems , day one.

Hate is a four letter word…and in my opinion, Frank Goodman acted like he had
hate for everyone here. If he didn’t he would have left. But he apparently
reveled in the games he played…like picking the legs off an insect.

As I wrote to the editors here and said in essence that “salty language is of no
concern to those of us who “man” the sight”. ( and we woman it too thank you,
Annie)

In fact that is what we do..and given the four letter words that have been flung
at us that have far greater consequences it would seem that our use of “adult”
language should be measured against the hate language heaped upon atheist
every day and therefore allowed for that reason alone….

Tom Edgar: you cannot be a believer and not have
religion.  Believing (and I assume you believe in a
god, afterlife, soul, etc etc…) is religion.

So Tom, what do you believe?  It is impossible for me
to know why you are here if you don’t clearly explain
what your beliefs are.

Here is what I believe:

I don’t believe in god.
I believe the god that is claimed to exist by the
jews, christians, and muslims does not infact exist.
I exposing children to religion in the home, and in
the church, synagoge, or mosque is abuse.

Here is what I know:
I have not seen any evidence for god.
I do not need god to explain the existence of the
world, the universe, or me.
The texts used by the abrahamic faiths to explain
god, the need for god, the inevitability of god, the necessity of god, do not in fact do so.
Faith, religion, god, church, mosque, synagoge have
done little to better the lot of humans, and indeed
they have created a class of social political and
economic leaches - the priests, rabbis, and
immams/muhlas, etc.  These leaches have a vested
interest in maintaining the god delusion, faith
guilt, and pious acquiescence to theological
authority.

BTW - I know plenty of 70, 80, and 90 year olds who
have no problems with profanity.  So I don’t think
your and Frankies probs with it are age or
generational.  I think you are trying to control the
use of language, and by doing so limit expression to
those concepts you find acceptable.  I think you
should use the language as you see fit.  I however
with reserve for me the same, the right to say what I
want how I want to whom I want.

As for personal attacks, I have been at the receiving
end, and didn’t find it too painful, I just continued
to express my opinion, and worked through it, I
suggest the sensitive among use learn to do the same. 
By fixating on the trivial you merely show you have
run out of relevant material to contribute.

sorry -

3 - clearly list…....

To the truthdig forum masters:

I thank you for your kind email.
I however don’t see how I violated any of the rules.

I think that statements like: “it has come to our
attention” are meaningless, and when you don’t list
the places were an alledged violation has taken place
it is even more meaningless.  Further more by not
including in the email a address or link where the
allegations may be challenged it is again
meaningless.

I suggest Truthdig

1 - develop an appeals process.
2 - allow an open airing of complaints - ie allowing
the accused to know who is the accuser.
3 - clearing list the substance of the accusation ie
- where the abuse took place, and why it is abbusive.

I have read the TOS and policy and it is sufficiently
vague that almost anything could be found in
violation.

I would submit that in general and specifics my posts
have by and large been:

1 - on topic
2 - polite
3 - seldom include personal attacks
4 - use the language that I naturally use

thank you.

Oh dear! I thought I wrote distinctly enough not to be confused with somebody else.

Annie. Are you just deliberately goading or by nature obnoxious?  Frank lives in the U S A I live in Australia. If you wish to check, my address is .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).  The actual residence is in Southern Queensland in a valley outside the southern most township of the State. Stanthorpe.

For those who question the religion v a/theism., with the differentiation between them. Yes there is a difference, one can be a believer but never be involved with religion per se.  As a matter of fact here in Australia only abut twenty five percent regularly attend churches whilst approximately 70% profess some form of religious belief. I’ve never seen anyone here say “Grace” in a restaurant whilst I have in the U S A. There are many similarities shared by Australia and the U S A.  Religion is, thankfully, not one of them.  Most of the similarities I find regretful.

I spoke of Frank as I know of him through personal e mail correspondence.  Frank is a little younger than I but I have no doubt that this particular age group of ours, plus the nurturing in a similar socio/ economic background is a contributory factor in the attitude to both truth, and the disdain for profanities. My own father’s repetitive phrase was “I would sooner be a thief than a liar.”

Personally I rarely use bad language although the great Australian adjective “Bloody” is so common place it is even used in advertisements so one becomes inured to most expletives.
I view them as I do religion. I have no use for either so I treat them equally. I try to ignore them and pity the people who find the need. I acknowledge there are times when maybe even the most objectionable words will only suffice, however that, I feel, is never in general conversation. To my mind they denigrate the user and the message

Frank’s religious beliefs are a little like the majority of Australian’s, conditional.  Not requiring public affirmation by Mosque or Church attendance. I respect him whilst not agreeing with him.

I trust Annie you will now drop your gun, or at least aim it elsewhere.  I am not Frank but I can be frank.

Tom Edgar. Glen Aplin S E Queensland Australia

Annie…I thought he was Frank long ago. No doubt.

Today I am going to ask that Truthdig remove TWIMC as he acts and sounds
like Frank Goodman clone. I’m also going to ask that Truthdig read comments
of myself, Annie, Siimpleman and Archeon to get a feel for how we feel, about
the abuse of this site by FG and TWIMC types who are here to not to discuss
anything of substance.

I have enjoyed this site and it has pushed me to think…beyond the positions I
had when I first came here.  We four are the core of this site right now and if
we leave they might as well close it down…or give it to the “Frank"ensteins of
the world.

I am only speaking for myself….but of it of support might help too.

Thanks

Today I am going to ask that Truthdig remove TWIMC as he acts and sounds
like Frank Goodman clone. I’m also going to ask that Truthdig read comments
of myself, Annie, Siimpleman and Archeon to get a feel for how we feel, about
the abuse of this site by FG and TWIMC types who are here to not to discuss
anything of substance.

I have enjoyed this site and it has pushed me to think…beyond the positions I
had when I first came here.  We four are the core of this site right now and if
we leave they might as well close it down…or give it to the “Frank"ensteins of
the world.

I am only speaking for myself….but ab it of support might help too.

Thanks

If this forum is about atheism, it is also about the
article Sam Harris wrote (see above).  As such this
forum is also about religion, or at least why
religion is silly, contradictory, and stupid.

There I said it, I am sure there will someone who
doesn’t like that I called religion stupid, feeling
that it is disrespectful of the silly beliefs they
might hold.

So now we have a member of the Frank fan club here…
Frank is an idiot, in love with his false theory of
truth, and confused on how it fits into the religion
debate.  Obviously his theory is the result of some
form of age induced dementia.

I love how those who have nothing to contribute ask:
“is this site about atheism or religion?”. WTF?  IF
this is about atheism, how can it not be about
religion, esp. when religious apologists and religion
induced morons keep showing up trying to put atheism
and atheists in their place.

Now we have TWIMC here, claiming to an atheist, yet
little bits of his theism keep showing up…(I refer
to his “Adam” reference, where he suggest adam was
the first man or human)....He gets upset when we
don’t take him seriously because he does not answer
direct simple questions.  Poor TWIMC, upset that his
theism keeps sticking it’s little nose out from his
asshole.  I do get a kick out of TWIMC’s use of
language, his convolution and his use of mixed metaphors suggests a serious lack of linguistic
knowledge and ability.  It is like he is adopting a
false idiom to hide his true nature, identity, and
possibly his lack of knowledge, experience, and
intellect.

Tom…....why don’t you spend some time reading Mr Goodman’s posts over the
past 6 months….Quite frankly I agree with your point of view…I see no evidence
for God either. Beyond that there is no reason to have someone post here who will
not answer questions. Period.

G’day.

I was referred to this site by Frank Goodman personally.

I’m somewhat bemused/amused by the references to Frank’s character and allusions to his, alleged, alter egos.
There are many assertions that do not coincide with the kindly, considerate and intellectual person with whom I am in regular correspondence.

Now I am an Australian octogenarian, WW2 vet, and a lifelong atheist.  Certainly not the same philosophical/religious outlook as Frank’s.

From what I gather of this site it seems that, in the main, the contributions are more about putting down personalities, and discrediting organised religious institutions.  I have to keep reminding myself that the religious situation down under is very different to that prevailing in the(dis)United States. We have had, and still have, leaders and Politicians who have no religious affiliations or beliefs. Professing strong religious beliefs can be a vote loser.

My atheism is purely that I have never seen verifiable evidence to convince me of any God’s existence. So is this site really about atheism or is it about religion?  After all the Christian is an unbeliever to a Muslim, so does that make both of them atheists to each other? Or does it actually matter?

Being goaded or having your leg pulled and then responding positively or negatively is really non productive.  As for the profanities that some people seem to find necessary to impart emphasis to conversation or writing;  I was always taught that this only showed the education of the person lacked fulfillment, so the lesser educated have to resort to the ad nauseum repetition of words not used in respectable society.  Be that as it may, if this is the only way of giving full expression to one’s feelings we should accept that some people have only this way of showing their interpretation of the argument. If it is only done for the shock, or meant to be offensive, then I can assure you it fails, furthermore it devalues the message.

Is Frank Goodman one of the alter egos?  I couldn’t say.  He didn’t tell me one way or the other.  It is possible, but then others can either have the same philosophical outlook, or even copy the style and delivery. It could easily be someone else just stirring the possum. (“Oz” for stirring the stew pot)
Your own fault if you wish to jump in and be cooked in the process.

Yes I know about Lilith…the first liberated woman.

Nice to see that TWIMC refuses to answer direct
questions.

I don’t want anyone kicked off this forum, censorship
is bad, let us not have any here.

TWIMC, Frank, Mankers, and Glenno can come here, at
least that way we can learn what the other side is up
to.

What is TWIMC on about us not being atheists?  I
don’t understand, I thought I was perfectly clear about where I stand.  I DON’T BELIEVE IN GOD and I
know the god of abraham does not exist.

TWIMC, what do you believe? or not believe?

I personally have no desire to kick anybody off.  I am not concerned about identity issues.  At least we are no longer being lobbied about Truth.  That horse has long been dead.  If the newbies contribute anything worth commenting on, I am happy to do so.  Otherwise, I simply ignore them.

PS: Archeon, biblically speaking, Eve was the second woman.  She was taken from Adam’s rib, while the first woman was created out of mud, co-equal with Adam.  Some identify her as Lilith.  Lilith refused to bow to Adam’s wishes, so god, discovering he had done the ungodly thing of making a mistake, replaced her with Eve.

Frank you have offered up over 10,000 words of a great deal of nothingness.
Right here on this page. Hello?

Nice try TWIMC, but just answer the questions.  They
are questions the answers to which will explain your
belief system.  If that is what you mean by loaded,
then yes they are loaded so that your true beliefs
will be revealed.  If you had nothing to hide re your
beliefs, you simply answer and explain each answer. 
I don’t expect a yes or no, nor do I expect you to
prove your answer. What I do expect is that you
explain your answer as best you can.  Perhaps then we
can move forward.

I answer all questions I can answer.  Everyone here
knows exactly what I believe and what I don’t
believe.  I have explained my positions, and why I
have come to my conclusions.  No mystery there.

You how ever wasted several paragraphs on why you
will not answer the questions, which in and of it
self is revealing.  I suspect you are afraid to
answer.

Again I agree some of my 15 questions are leading,
but when trying to dissect and discover another’s
beliefs and opinions this is neccessary.  I can only
ask questions from my perspective, you however may
and should answer them from yours.

I will ask you two more questions:

1 - what does the term “god” mean?

2 - do yo believe in an afterlife?

Lots of luck Frank. Either we’ll have a say…or you’ll own the site.

FOR Annie, Simpleman, Archeon of Thrace

Sometimes it pays to waste time on people like TWIMC (Which I did…seeing if
this Frank-like object had asked any questions that pushed the peanut forward
in terms of this web site. Did he provide any wisdom or answer any questions
of ours that added to our knowledge or his. The answer is totally negative)

Therefore have an interesting idea for Annie, Simpleman, Archeon of Thrace ,
Akira (if your watching) and myself.

Since we represent 90+% of the posts here by atheists why don’t we ask
Truthdig to let us be the “deciders” of who stays and who goes? Majority vote.

Agree here….then we will agree on a simple paragraph that we will all send to
Truthdig…and see what they say. Seems it’s the only way we’ll clean house of
the Frank types. They might not like it…but they also might listen more
carefully if we complain as a group.

What I don’t understand is why certain persons of the
non atheist persuasion refuse to answer questions,
explain what they believe, and claim one thing when
clues to another belief are hidden in their posts.

I think my posts have attempted to explain what I
believe and why I believe it.  I have used what I
have learned from my studies of history, science,
literature, and yes even religion.

On the other some come here to simply insult and
spout pointless drivel.  Frank was fixated on “truth”
yet never managed to explain what he meant, TWIMC
posts comments that are loaded with internal
contradictions, Glenno comes with prepackaged
fundamentalist pap.

TWIMC I am asking you directly now, what are your
beliefs and how did you come to them?

Here are some simple questions for you to respond to:

1 - is there a god or gods?
2 - if yes to 1, is this god the god of abraham?
3 - how old is the earth?
4 - is evolution the driving force NOW in the world?
5 - how did the world come to be.
6 - do we have souls?
7 - do animals have souls?
8 - what happens after death?
9 - is the bible a holy text?
10 - did jesus exist?
11 - was jesus the son of god?
12 - was jesus god?
13 - is the koran a holy text?
14 - is the koran the literal word of god?
15 - was mohammed the prophet of alha (god)?
16 - was adam the first human?
15 - was eve the second human and the first woman?

Answer these questions and then perhaps we may have
more to discuss. Don’t answer, but then we will
wonder what you are doing here.

I will continue with my lectures, because it is
obvious that you and those like you need some
education.

TWIMC you are really quite the idiot.

All faith is irrational.  That quite simply is the
truth.

Most atheists are rational, and come to atheism
through reason.

IF you are not a theist (one who believes in a
god/s), an atheist (one who does not believe in a
god/s), or an agnostic (one who questions the
existence of god/s), what is left?  I think that just
about covers: yes, no, and maybe.

A clue to your true belief is found in that you
assert Adam as the first man.  A not so subtle slip
on your part. But I thank you for it.  Mitocondria
are very interesting as they seem to cells within
cells.

As for your x and y chromosome disertation….this is
the standard simplified version of reality.  We now
are becoming aware that human sexuality is infact not
a simple duality: male/female.  But that male and
female are merely the extremes, between which exist
humans who are by the standard definition more or
less male or female.  IE humans sexuality is a continuum between male and female.  We are learning
too that sexual preference is also a continuum, with
some people heterosexual, some homosexual, and the
rest of us who fall somewhere in between.

I am quite sure the first human male was not named
Adam, as sure as I am that the first woman was not
named Eve, nor that she was created from Adam’s rib.

Good night all.

Why is this board always talking about ‘being shown up by a woman’? Also, I thought that once you were thrown-off the site, you weren’t to post under another name? So is Annieup09 the same person as Annie Reitano? If so, she is in violation of the Ts and Cs, right? Men…stop the talk about guys like Frank being shown up by a woman, OK? Otherwise, at least admit when the women have it ‘handed to them’ by the men. No more girlie-boy statements, fair enough? Annieup09, tell me, what is a USB port and how does it allow you to gain access? (This will be interesting).

Why do we as atheists have to be “peaceful”?

I have witnessed in my 48 years the “peaceful”
christians in Norther Ireland, the followers of the
“peaceful” religion of islam riot in India killing
hindus, the “peaceful” christians an muslims killing
each other in the Former Yugoslavia, etc etc….

If that is what if means to be peaceful, perhaps it
is time to be angry like a nest of hornets hit by a
beehive….PEACE as defined by the judeo-christian-
islamic religion certainly hasn’t stoped the killing.

Oh yes I know, it is the fault of the people not the
religion.  I know what will be said by religous
appologists: “Most followers are kind, generous, and
peaceful, it is only a small minority who live at the
extreme ends of faith who grasp violence, murder, and
death.”  While this is prob true, it fails to
acknowledge that the justification for the extremes
is found in the faith documents, and for judeo-
chistian-islam these are the bible, the torah, and
the koran.

In my mind, the literalists are in fact reading the
texts correctly (as seen from the POV of the texts) -
ie. within the texts is the requirement to read them
as true as written. Picking and choosing whether or
not this or that is true, is indeed not allowed,
interpretation is not allowed.  The texts are the
word of the god, immutable, infallible, and
universally true. To question them is heretical,
evil, and sinful.  Those who seek to temper the texts
saying this means that, and that means this, to bend
the texts (and thus the faith) to modern life, are
wrong, it cannot be done.

IF one part is found to be false, then the claim that
the texts are the unquestionable truth of god is
false.  Or possibly, that that which
inspired/revealed/wrote the texts (god) is not all
knowing, and thus not god (prob. man).  Either way,
they would not be “gods” word, but rather the word of
not-god.

The all-knowing, all-seeing god would have know and
seen this problem ahead of time (and I mean literally
before time), and being such a loving god, could have
avoided all the bloodshed, rape, murder, and violence
that his failure to foresee would cause, and because
he is infinitely kind and loving would have avoided
it.  IF he had foreseen it, and did nothing to avoid
it, then he is not infinitely kind and loving, and
our understand of what is god would be false.  If he
had not seen it, he would not be all-seeing and all-
knowing, and again our understand of what is god
would be false.

This then begs the question, if our understanding of
what is god is false, or even potentially false, what
is god, who is god, where is god, and is there a god? 
How would we know the “truth”?  In the general philosophical question of “can/does a god/s exist?”
this remains at all times speculative, and for the
man on the street a pointless question.  At least
until the dragon of the abrahamic god has been slain
- for it is this god that can be shown to not exist.
How do we know he does not exist?  Simple, because he
cannot, because the texts that create him is a
fiction.  The texts are logically implausible and
internally contradictory, vague and lacking a basic
understanding of the nature of the world - this is
what proves them to be of an earthly rather than
divine nature.

TWIMC you are a coward.

Yes I use a screen name too, however I have used this
one since 1994, at the very beginning of the Internet
revolution…anyone who wants to could find out who I
am in the world of blood and bones.

I continue to use it to ensure continuity of identity
on the web and net.  If I suddenly used my other real
name the chain of identity would be broken.

I have told you what I believe and why I believe it. 
The others Sned, Annie, Simpleman, etc have also
explained what they believe or don’t, and why they do
so.  You cowardly TWIMC, have not.  You throw out
pointless commentary, and do not address the issues. 
Pointlessly commenting on language you find offensive
or vulgar, grow up and get over it.  People are in
generalities individuals and will find a variety of
language acceptable or offensive or vulgar.  I
personally think you should be allowed to not use
profanities if you don’t want to, I also think I
should be allowed to use them if I want to.  Personal
attacks?  Go ahead I am a strong man and can defend
myself.  Even in the vulgarities, the personal
attacks, and the idiotic comments we can at times
fine grains of truth about the speaker, and about the
respondent.  Here is usually revealed the true self
on either side.

It’s time to have this AH removed too.

It occurred to me Annie that had you not cursed here and there Frank wouldn’t
have complained, because when he did they obviously took some of our
complaints about him to heart…finally.

Frank Goodman Sr was tossed off this site like a brick off the bow and the
coward that he is, he came back trying to hide behind some cuteness…and
once again adding nothing to this site. Annie came back as Annie…(Thank you)

Must be tough to be shown up by a woman Frank..but then you admitted long
ago that you had difficulty in that arena…you also have difficulty in hiding.
What makes you stay here.  By the way…I compared Franks writing to TWIMC.
Both write at the 4-5th grade reading level with about 80% reading ease.

That;‘s some achievement….worked in that army lab too many years!

TWIMC, you still don’t get it.

I am an atheist regarding god.

I am an anti-theist regarding the god of abraham.

This is distilled into this:

I do not believe in god/s.

I believe the god of the bible, the torah, the koran, does not, and cannot exist.

Or this:

I have no belief regarding the existence or non-existence of supernatural deities.

I actively believe, and claim, that because the texts used to describe the god of Abraham are so full of contradictions, faleshoods, logical contradictions, and falacies regarding the nature of god, the history of god, etc, the god they describe cannot exist, and thus does not exist.

Furthermore, I dont’ believe in ghosts, souls, spirits, angels, demons, incubi, vampires, werewolves, thunderbirds, valkiries, borg, or klingons.  They exist as fictions, as placeholders in myth and story for humans, and human virtues and vices.

So in short, I am an atheist in general and an anti-theist regarding jesus, abraham, and mohammed.

BTW I am thinking you (TWIMC) are Franky Boy.

What are your beliefs TWIMC?
What role does a religion play in your life?
How would you describe you religious beliefs?

Fran…talking to himself again and again and again…..very sick dude.

TWIMC
I gave you specific reasons why I did not believe in a god. You have yet to
comment….only complain.

If you want to discuss atheism I did.

Please discuss and let’s not go off on a tangent like abortion which has nothing to
do with this web site…except to incite..since anti abortionists are primarily out of
the most conservative of religions..which you have stated we discuss too much.

Get with the program and stop whining out of both sides of your mouth…Frank.

TWIMC…..

Like Frank…you have added nothing to discuss…and a need to deal with truth and
to be self congratulatory. Frank went away….(very very unlike him) and oddly
enough you show up…(very very unlikely)...wanting to discuss with
Frank…(incredibly unlikely!!!!)..My god man Halloween isn’t for weeks.

Archeon…enjoyed your last post. If there’s a god who has a hell I’d spit in it’s face
first and tell it to send me there.(Don’t ask me where I’d get the spit
from…haven’t figured that one out yet)

It just amazes me that people don’t understand this simple TRUTH:

The statement: “I don’t believe in god.”

Is not: “I believe god does not exist.”

this is not a simple trick of language…it goes to the very heart of what atheism is.  Firstly it is truely individual.  ie. it is for each person to define.  Mine is founded on “I don’t believe in god.”.  Where or not “god” exists is not relevant. I am sure like me no-one else really understands what the general term “god” actually means, or how to define it.  From what I see “god” as a term is place holder for an indefinable concept for which no proof or evidence exists in the world of real objects.

However.  Most of what people understand about “god”, faith, religion is mediated by texts written down 1000’s of years ago, and is further mediated by a priestly class whose existence, authority, and leisure are founded on the texts being true.  Furthermore, the only “proof” and “evidence” of the truth of the texts is to be found in the texts.

Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are founded on the same idea, whoreship the same god, and refer to the same original source for authority and veracity.  The majority of people clearly understand these to be “religions”.

Budhism, is depending on localion, and local cultur may be religion or phylosophy….I generally would call it religion.

Commmunism is also a religion.

What I do state catagorically is this: the god of abraham, as described in the texts of the bible the torah and the koran, does not exist.  This god is a fiction like Zeus, Odin, and Manitou….he(for he is a male) was created by men.  the texts are contradictory, full of holes, fail to explain simple natural phenomena (ie> the role of semen, the role of blood, electricity, gravity, combustion, oxygen, how many “elements” there really are, atoms, molecules, cells, volcanoes, earthquakes, rain, clouds, etc etc etc etc…..).  The god of the texts condones rape, murder, theft, genocide, war, torture, slavery, pedophilia, adultery, etc etc etc.

Clearly when the majority are speaking of “god” they are talking about this fairy tale god - the one that does not exist.  Once that dragon has been slain, then perhaps we can start talking about whether a god or gods exist.

I however do not see any evidence of god/s and can happly accept the senario that there is/are none.  IE - I don’t need god/s to make my life here happy, complete, and worth the while.

TWIMC….

Since you won’t answers questions, I invite you to comment on the content of my
post which enumerated my own beliefs. I also invite you to clearly define your
own beliefs.

Thanks

Annie—- there’s no question that Frank is creating his own fan base, consisting
of himself.(TWIMC) I hesitated to answer his last statement….but since it was
flagrantly wrong (again) I decided to.

When Frank Comes back as “Frank Goodman, Sr.” then I’ll believe he wasn’t
thrown off.

“Atheism, however, is never explained beyond
a negative sense of being against religion”

That’s sheer BS.  I for one don’t say that God doesn’t exist. I just see no
evidence for god. Therefore I don’t believe in god. Is that a comment about
someone else’s religion. I don’t think so. I also believe that time doesn’t
exist..and that gives me reason to believe in a universe that has no beginning
and no end and therefore no god (started it all)  father figurer. Nor can I
fathom a creature or spirit coming into being with all knowledge of all
things….including (and I find this an interesting point) language. For without
another being with whom to communicate there is no need for language. Is
this a comment about another person’s religion? Of course not.

Newsweek reports that more people believe in angels than they do in
evolution…which is a reflection of a dumbed down society and very ignorant
people. Ignorance is a measurement of knowledge…and religions, for the most
part thrive on ignorance.

But don’t think for a moment that we don’t think on our own. Does this make
you happy?

“Atheism, however, is never explained beyond
a negative sense of being against religion”

That’s sheer BS.  I for one don’t say that God doesn’t exist. I just see no
evidence for god. Therefore I don’t believe in god. Is that a comment about
someone else’s religion. I don’t think so. I also believe that time doesn’t
exist..and that gives me reason to believe in a universe that has no beginning
and no end and therefore no god (started it all)  father figurer. Nor can I
fathom a creature or spiriti coming into being with all knowledge of all
things….including (and I find this an interesting point) language. For without
another being with whom to communicate there is no need for language. Is
this a comment about another person’s religion? Of course not.

Newsweek reports that more people believe in angels than they do in
evolution…which is a reflection of a dumbed down society and very ignorant
people. Ignorance is a measurement of knowledge…and religions, for the most
part thrive on ignorance. But don’t think for a moment that we don’t think on
our own. Does this make you happy?

hello everyone, I don’t know if you heard but in
Canada a Roman Catholic bishop was just arrested for
having a laptop full of child porn….HA HA!

I love hearing these kind of stories…faith is
apparently strong enough to cause people to hallucinate and believe in imaginary sky beings and
unseen spirits…but not strong enough to keep old
men from masturbating to pictures of little girls and
boys….Which makes me ask: What fucking good is
faith doing?  It obviously isn’t stopping people from
doing bad things.

Christianity and Islam are obsessed with sex, and in
particular: who gets to put what where in whom. 
Christianity and Islam are religions run by men, and
thus they are misogynistic belief systems where the
male believers are raised to fear the power of female
sexuality.

Of course they also fear: truth, justice, liberty,
equality, equity, honesty, love, forgiveness, and
compassion.

God is NOT great!

FYI All….

The Life of Apollonius of Tyana (whose life is probably THE life that was the
model for Christ’s written story is now available on-line free in Google Books.

The difference between Christ and Apollonius is that Apollonius, (as of my
knowledge today) was well know in Roman times as statues and busts of him
were found throughout Rome. He died in A.D. 96-98.

It’s my contention that when Paul tried to convert the pagan Romans that just
as the South American Indians mix their religion with Catholicism, that the
Romans mixed Paul’s message with their knowledge of Apollonius…and when
in 300 A.D.  Constantine demanded that the churches get their messages
straight…that Jesus ands Apolonius were permanently wed into one story…that
made the masses and Constantine very happy. ©

Mankers this forum is about atheism, and indirectly
about how irrational and illogical faith, religion,
and a belief in god is…....

Does this interest you?  Perhaps you have some ideas
regarding atheism, religion, and faith…please share
them.  But please read through some of the posts and
perhaps some of the questions you have may already
have been dealt with.  As you are new here, it would
be appropriate to ask any question or make any
comment.  Feel free to comment on the Sam Harris
article too.

Just in case anyone missed it:

Atheism is not a religion!

Mankers

Frank appears in many of the 77 pages listed below…in long interminable
posts.
For anyone here to try to explain Frank is simply inviting Frank back here to
defend what we don’t get exactly right, which means your question could easily
be from Frank. The one thing I can say is that we don’t agree with his theories
at all.

Glenno was/is Christian who presented usual Christian thinking but changed
the subject, asked foolish questions an didn’t answer the tough questions lied
came back under other names and eventually left.

This site is about atheism…not about Frank or Glenno. Do some homework..it’s
all here on the links about the comment window

Atheism is not taught or even talked about in
positive terms is because the crypto-fascist religio-
tyrants fear it.

Seriously, if atheism were presented as a viable
option far too many youngsters would cast aside
religion and be free.

When a child of methodist parents, converts and
becomes a muslim..he or she is not questioning faith,
god, or religion at all.  They are still blind.

Atheists, don’t have anything too prove, nor do they
have to prove anything.  The religious are even
afraid of the question: “why do you believe?”. 
Because in their world the need to believe is
assumed, and wondering why one would believe is not a
question they understand.  Those who claim there is a
god or gods, they have the onus to prove - they are
making the extraordinary claim….

Science is Atheistic is it not?

Hi - I’m new to the board. Would someone please give me the ‘quick skinny’ on Frank Goodman, and TWIMC? Who is this Glenno fellow that everybody keeps referring to? Many thanks. I want to contribute to the conversation.

On ID..I’m in agreement with Annie.

I have no problem with ID being taught in a religion class, or any other class that
deals with religion. After all it’s a concept. The reason atheism and religion are not
taught in science classes is simple. Can’t be proven. Can’t be disproved.
Really end of discussion.

Also anyone who comes here and refuses to answer questions…as Frank did with
Simpleman…..is Frankly refusing to be ridiculed for his answers,

Hence…why deal with Frank or the Non Frank.?

Hey, gang!

Let’s cut the newbie some slack.  He brought up ID; let’s discuss it with him.  It’s certainly on topic.  Surely we can open the discussion without asking questions at first.  He can present his point of view and we can respond with ours.  Eventually this will take us back to basic beliefs and disbeliefs. 
If he wishes to expose Frankonian phallusies, let’s see what he has to say.

TWIMC how are you religious?

I am truly interested in understanding your religion
and cosmology and theology.

If you are unwilling to explain you beliefs, then let
me suggest that participation in forums such as this
is inappropriate.  As we explain our beliefs, and
also defend them, if you are not willing to put yours
to the test, then commenting on ours or mine is not
relevant.  Unless you are willing to expose your
beliefs you have no right to comment on the beliefs
of lack of belief of others.

IF you want to defend religion then do so.
If you want to comment on atheism then do so.
If we ask what you believe then answer.

I don’t accept that some words are vulgar.

I ask you again: What are your religious beliefs?

I don’t have any religious beliefs. I am an atheist,
and antheist and an anti-theist.  I don’t accept that
there is a supernatural world.  I don’t accept the
bible the torah or the koran to be holy books (they
are perhaps mythology).  I don’t believe in god. I
know the god of abraham is a fiction.

I am a Pastafarian, and worship the great Noodley One
of the thousand apendages.
I pray to the great cosmic Teapot so that my cup
runneth over with Earl Grey.

So WIMC are you staying or are you going?