I answered his question in my comment #294. I am free with my opinions, which I substantiate with well documented facts.

 

Lol, just read this. Thanks. And you're not excitable? Seriously?

 

Personal opinions DO NOT require facts.

 

Privately funded events can have as much of that old timey religion as they like. But if it's a public high school game (i.e. funded by tax dollars) or other event that is paid for by John Q. Public, then no, they can't. Other than that, no one is forcing them to do anything. If you go to your local pro baseball game, they can hold a half-hour sermon before the first pitch if they want and legally, no one can say a thing to them about it. Some people might complain and vote with their wallets not to go to a game if a sermon will proceed, but they have every right to have one.

So here, you just don't know what you're talking about.

In this case, your use of the phrase doesn't make any sense. It's like saying "i'm a self-proclaimed female" when you were, in fact, born a female. It's a meaningless distinction that only serves to make you sound like your calling in to question one's status as an atheist or not.

This makes no sense. There are certain things that are for work and certain things that aren't. When the elected official shows up at his office, his or her religion is supposed to be left in the car. They are not supposed to be legislating via their holy book. Might they be offended by that? Well sure. But they agreed to uphold the constitution which is secular and their job is to represent all the people, not enforce the will of their god.

Saying "well, Christians get mad if you don't choose Christianity" as if that means they should is like saying 'I'm offended that my boss won't let me get drunk before driving the school kids home." Sure, you might have the right to drink a beer or eight, but not on the job. So the representatives have every right to believe every retarded thing they want. But when they're performing their governmental duties the only authority they should be bowing to is the Federal and State constitution and any other accompanying laws.

If they are not capable of separating themselves from their faith in order to represent we the people then they should not have the job.

Furthermore, no one is telling the religious people they can't pray or have their services. They just can't do it on the government dime. If you are a city council member and you want to pray at a city council meeting, then pray your little heart out. But the Supreme Court has upheld the precedence that reciting a sectarian prayer once the meeting is called to order and you are actually on city time, is unconstitutional. If you want to pray silently while the city council is going about it's business, you can as well. No one will tell you otherwise.

So really, all of your information is wrong.

If Christians want to get butt hurt that the constitution doesn't recognize their religion as being special, that's too bad. We have a secular constitution that established a secular government in which religion is to get no special preference. In order to change that you'd have to repeal the 1st Amendment.

Once again, they have the right to do any ritual they want on their own time. They do not have the right to take up government resources to perform that ritual. Get it straight.

Agreed. If Christians would keep their religion in their homes and churches, then atheists like myself would have practically nothing to complain about. We'd still think them crazy as a shit house rat, but everyone has their right to be crazy.

You might be extremely tolerant but you also appear to be extremely ignorant of the facts of what you're trying to say. You're wrong about pretty much everything.

-S-

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I tend to follow the logic of the Supreme Court as they've interpreted the Establishment Clause over the years as keeping the religious powers from gaining much of a foothold in both state and federal governments. After all, you never see groups like American Atheists or the Freedom From Religion Foundation trying to lobby congress to pass laws that will prohibit the private practice of religion. All of their lawsuits are reactionary in nature in that they are trying to push religion back out of the government once it's got it's dirty little claws in.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact and interpretation and possible revision is absolutely necessary. It's meant to be a malleable document. With things like Nativity Scenes on court house lawns and compulsory school prayer, that is allocating government resources for the support of an explicitly sectarian display and the subversion of religious freedoms of children. And those are just two examples. While the Constitution doesn't say 'no school prayer' (led by the school, students and teachers can pray as much as they want as long as they aren't disruptive about it) it seems to me to be a natural extension of the 1st Amendment. If you are forcing children to recite prayers in a public school, you are forcing religion on them, whether they or their families want it or not. If it's a city ordinance or law then, under the terms of the 14th Amendment, it's a violation of the Federal Constitution, hence school prayer is 'unconstitutional.'

If you feel I'm wrong about this, I welcome your opinion to the contrary.

-S-

 

I want to go for a drink with this guy! Hang on. No I don't

 

Bullshit.

This didn't happen. But if it did, then she was well within her rights to tell the principal to fuck off (in polite terms) and if she did receive disciplinary action as a result of her private prayer, she could have easily sued him and won and I would have supported her lawsuit 100%.

You wrong. Again. Show me the lawsuit where someone sued a Christian because they said a private prayer. Go on, I'll wait.

A government official can practice their religion where or however they want except on the job. That's it. No one is telling them otherwise.

Well, see, the thing is... YES, you can. The government is supposed to be mute on religion. Not just a little bit religious to satisfy all the whiney Christians. Mute. Have no say. Not come down on either side of it. Which Constitution are you reading, exactly?

Irrelevant. If Christians don't like having a secular government then they can work to get the 1st Amendment repealed. If that doesn't work then their stuck. They can be offended all they want but they have no legal grounds to do anything about it. You do not have the right to not be offended.

I actually wish you wouldn't agree because you don't do 'our side' any favors. Half the time you don't have a god damned clue what you're talking about and the other half, even if you do, you get your conclusions all wrong.

-S-

 

If one bases an opinion on a factual assertion, and the factual assertion is not true, the opinion is invalid.

 

Because we don't know on what date and in what generation a gene mutated does not mean that the gene did not mutate. It did. It's a fact. Evolution is a fact.

Did you jerk off yesterday? If so, what time? What, you don't know exactly what time and at what second you shot your wad? Then obviously you didn't jerk off. After all, if you don't know every tiny little detail, such as just how many times you stroked it, what amount of torque did you apply to the shaft and the weight of your load, then you can't actually say you jerked off.

What they develop later on in life is no relation to my statement. What I said is that atheism is the default of every newborn. Not every middle-aged goat herder and cave man. A child is born with absolutely no belief in a higher power.

But you also didn't answer the question. If no one told you about a god, what evidence could you point to that proved a god existed? If you didn't start from square one with your faith as a shield trying to retroactively fit the facts in to gel with your theology, what bit of data could you show me?

Perhaps. But then again, I never said it couldn't be a god. It just can't be the Judeo-Christian god. Or any other terrestrial theology. It would have to be a god completely outside anything we think know.

 

If you want other possibilities to be considered then you have to give a substantiated reason why. Faith does not qualify. It's that simple.

"You're not considering goddidit!" you say.

"Well no, why should I? Can you give me a reason to?"

"Um... Well... Not really. But I really really believe it. And so do some other people."

"And I should consider god because you really believe it's true?"

"Yes."

"But why?"

"Because how else could it happen?"

"Didn't your mother ever tell you it was impolite to answer a question with a question?"

"..."

"Okay, let me rephrase the question: How do you know it could only have been your extremely narrow definition of a deity?"

"Because how else could it have happened?"

"Check, please."

That about sums up the power of your argument.

-S-

 

I was not excited when I typed that. I make that statement with no more passion then when I look out my window and comment on the state of the weather. It's currently fall in Korea. Partly cloudy and 63 degrees. You're fucking retarded. It's that simple. Why? Because Newtonian physics is used by every astronomer in every observatory all over the world. In fact, Newtonian physics is used to explain and test the laws of motion on just about everything bigger than an atom. That you think we only teach newtonian physics because most of us are just too stupid to understand Relativity is more than ample proof that you're a unibrowed, knuckle-dragging retard of the highest order.

-S-

 

If you weren't such an arrogant, over-bearing, long-winded, self-aggrandising bore, you would have actually been able to quote what I wrote rather than paraphrase for your own turgid arguments. I won't bother to elucidate because I'm sure you read it.

You know I actually agree with most of what you say but you are such a sanctimonious cock that I'd probably take DL's side in an argument against you just to see you 'excited'.

One final point. Is it possible for you to put your response in a zip file as I don't think I'll have enough time between now and Christmas to read it if your previous diatribes are anything to go by? Cheers

 

Thank you.

 

I quoted you directly the first time. Here, I'll do it again.

Everything about that is wrong. That you would assert such nonsense and then go on to claim that you're educated is why you're fucking retarded.

Whatever gets your panties wet. I don't really care. I can see no benefit of you ever agreeing with me on anything.

No, it's not possible. Learn to read faster.

-S-

 

You're so easy to please ManBitch. You thank him, even when he's basically insulting you, just because he happens to also call me a few names while he's at it. Further evidence of what a sycophant you are. Is there no limit to just how low on your belly you can crawl where I'm concerned. I imagine someone could walk up to you and piss right up your left nostril and you'd be happy about it as long as they expressed a supreme dislike for me between streams.

-S-

 

Its not about the speed Shake. Its about the boringness of what you write.

 

Then I guess you'd better just skim over it, eh?

-S-

 

I'd be better off shitting over it methinks, but thanks for the suggestion.

 

As you like, it makes no difference to me. Any opinion you ever express going forward will always be expressed by someone who thinks Newtonian Physics no longer applies because of Relativity. You're a fucking retard. So once more, whatever get's your panties wet. :lol:

-S-

 

What you are speaks so loudly I can't read what you say.