is it you?

[Sidoh]

GRADES FOR CAMEL, MR.

SARCASM: F

[Ender]

[...] or are "seperated" [...]

separated*

[Kaleeko]

[...] or are "seperated" [...]

separated*

I find it very odd that you correct my spelling errors here, and yet can't be bothered to capitalize anything and use 'lol' slang in IM, at least when speaking to me. I honestly don't care, I just find it weird. ;) Did I ever end up unblocking you, anyways? I honestly can't remember.

I need to, if I haven't. I actually kinda miss talking to you. :-O (Total and complete tangent.)

[Ender]

Because telling people that the reason they want to kill themselves is that they don't believe in God -- or are "seperated" from God, whatever -- is a perfectly acceptable form of trying to convert people...

What's funny is that I hear this bullshit all the time from my parents. "I'm feeling down today." "And when was the last time you went to church?"

Organized religion is fucked up. Srsly.

That sucks. :(

My parents aren't that pushy, but coming out of the "agnostic" closet was a bit of a process, heh.

Yeah, I agree.  I don't know, maybe there are exceptions, but it certainly seems like the monster religions (Christianity, Islam, etc) can be dangerous/annoying.

You'll feel differently if you study the philosophy of religion. A lot of smart people are, or were, religious; you're just focusing on a minority. This same minority of dumb and despicable people exists among atheists, but they often just don't have as much political power -- they are effectively invisible. You may argue that it is the effect of the minority that matters, and that religion enables the misplacement of political power; to which I will respond: if you denounce religion for effecting religious wars, you may as well denounce science for producing the atomic bomb. It's rather hypocritical.

Aside from this, the antagonization of religion is a vain way for many to exalt themselves. People like to be in minorities: such antipathy can be very self-serving. I'm not saying this about you, but rather as something that applies well in general.

The only way to attack Christianity is to start at the base, Christian morality, and the context in which it was introduced. You can't take advantage of a primary source by decrying disconnected secondary sources. A tree's strength is not measured by bad branches. The same can be said for Islam, Judaism, and all other religions.

[Sidoh]

You'll feel differently if you study the philosophy of religion. A lot of smart people are, or were, religious; you're just focusing on a minority. This same minority of dumb and despicable people exists among atheists, but they often just don't have as much political power -- they are effectively invisible. You may argue that it is the effect of the minority that matters, and that religion enables the misplacement of political power; to which I will respond: if you denounce religion for effecting religious wars, you may as well denounce science for producing the atomic bomb. It's rather hypocritical.

Aside from this, the antagonization of religion is a vain way for many to exalt themselves. People like to be in minorities: such antipathy can be very self-serving. I'm not saying this about you, but rather as something that applies well in general.

The only way to attack Christianity is to start at the base, Christian morality, and the context in which it was introduced. You can't take advantage of a primary source by decrying disconnected secondary sources. A tree's strength is not measured by bad branches. The same can be said for Islam, Judaism, and all other religions.

Doubtful.  And I NEVER claimed otherwise. 

If by "minority", you mean "nearly every creationist I've ever had a debate with", then I agree with that.

I do denounce religion for creating religious wars.  I think that's one of the most dangerous aspects of religion.  "You're wrong and I'm right, so I'm going to beat you up."  I'm not sure I understand how you can disagree with that.

Your analogy is crappy.  Science may have produced the atomic bomb, but it wasn't science that decided to use it.

I antagonize religion because the apparently arbitrary morals and definitions of certain things they impose on people cause them to say things like "homosexuals are sinners" or "stop killing babies."  Again -- I don't have ANY PROBLEM with religion as long as it doesn't get in the way of others.  Don't misinterpret what I'm saying or put words in my mouth.  Notice that I said "CAN BE" not "ARE".  You assume I said some things I didn't and then continue from there.  It's really annoying.

Disclaimer: my initial statement was formed out of frustration.  I stand by my "stay out of my way and I have no problem with you" philosophy.

[topaz~]

Interesting comment by my (conservative) mother about prop 8: "why should we let them marry? they're lucky we're not stoning them to death, we've been tolerant enough. america no longer has the blessing of god"

[Armin]

Let's redeem the blessing of God by killing our brothers! Forget the War on Drugs or the War Against Terrorism, we need the War Against Faggotism.

[Blaze]

Let's redeem the blessing of God by killing our brothers! Forget the War on Drugs or the War Against Terrorism, we need the War Against Faggotism.

Yes on prop 8!

[Hitmen]

BTW, in case anyone is wondering, that's the real phone number on there. If anyone wants to call it I'm sure it would be good for a few lols. The thing I find the funniest is that no where on the page does it say who these people are. So I don't actually know who you would be calling :)

[leet_muffin]

Interesting comment by my (conservative) mother about prop 8: "why should we let them marry? they're lucky we're not stoning them to death, we've been tolerant enough. america no longer has the blessing of god"

So... are you in California or is this hitting national?

Let's redeem the blessing of God by killing our brothers! Forget the War on Drugs or the War Against Terrorism, we need the War Against Faggotism.

Yes on prop 8!

International?!

[topaz~]

California, no chance its going to become a national issue for several decades.

[leet_muffin]

California, no chance its going to become a national issue for several decades.

I mean... has widespread knowledge of it hit the national level?

To be honest, I have no clue what propositions there are in any other state than California.

[while1]

Same, I don't even live in California, yet I know more California propositions (2 to be exact) than I've ever known about in my own state of Virginia.

[MyndFyre]

For example, evolution can be proven - it can be observed directly - but one can't prove that it describes where we came from, and therefore that it precludes intelligent design.

Ah, stop right there!

Evolution on a micro level has been directly observed.  Evolution on a macro level (entire new orders, classes, phyla) has not been observed and arguably will be impossible to observe.  Consider what we know about that process in terms of genetics - a major differentiation between species is in terms of chromosomal count.  However, when we observe genetic mutations that result in extra chromosomes, such as trisomy-21, we get defects that would be prohibitive to advancement through natural selection, such as Down's Syndrome.  (additional chromosomal problems)

I'm not saying that evolution can't be observed - I just think that it's incorrect to say "evolution is a directly observable fact," because it's not really the whole story.

[nslay]

For example, evolution can be proven - it can be observed directly - but one can't prove that it describes where we came from, and therefore that it precludes intelligent design.

Ah, stop right there!

Evolution on a micro level has been directly observed.  Evolution on a macro level (entire new orders, classes, phyla) has not been observed and arguably will be impossible to observe.  Consider what we know about that process in terms of genetics - a major differentiation between species is in terms of chromosomal count.  However, when we observe genetic mutations that result in extra chromosomes, such as trisomy-21, we get defects that would be prohibitive to advancement through natural selection, such as Down's Syndrome.  (additional chromosomal problems)

I'm not saying that evolution can't be observed - I just think that it's incorrect to say "evolution is a directly observable fact," because it's not really the whole story.

There is at least evidence to back up the theory of evolution.  Though, as with all scientific theories (not to be confused with mathematical theories), it is possible for it to be incorrect at some level.  Nonetheless, it is a theory that does not appear to be disputed by a majority of scientists.  What ticks me is that intelligent design advocates use social engineering tactics to make it appear as though the theory of evolution is disputed by scientists to justify intelligent design as a valid school topic, even though there is no basis or evidence for it.  I try to be tolerant respectful for the beliefs of others, but I am absolutely disgusted when others are manipulative to the establishment to force their beliefs on everyone.