Take a look at this freakjob...

[Ravenlock]

SN strikes again:

www.statenews.com/op_article.phtml?pk=22579

~Roger

[Rama]

Haaaaa ha ha ha ha ha.
It's THE Lee Ehlers!!
For those who might not recall, this asshat sent me many *many* emails after I wrote some letters to the editor basically showcasing his complete lack of an ability to think critically.
At least now I know what he looks like so I can run him over if I ever see him trying to cross the street. (<--Doesn't own a car, but it's the thought that matters!)

[Magonus]

And his making some good points is a problem... why?

-Magonus

[UsherBen]

what good points?

[profdunebastard]

Communist, totalitarian regimes do not equate to atheist regimes per se. Sure they are atheist, but they are also repressive, oppressive, and reeking of douchebaggery. Stalin didn't cart people to the gulags in the name of atheism, but for personal power.

Christian regimes and tragedies of the past however-are done in the name of christianity. Crusades, inquisition, 9-11, etc-sure other factors serve to motivate as well, but in all these cases God was used to justify the actions. Mao and Stalin weren'y using the absence of god to justify anything really.. And forcing people to be atheist isn't an answer either. It has to be earned, found for oneself.

[Valvilis]

Maggie once again didn't take the time to look at what he was reading, he knew it sounded like something he agreed with so small details such as the fact that the Washington Post did no 2000 report on religion in America aren't going to get in his way. So why does a dolt such as Ehlers make up a phantom report? Because the real numbers aren't anywhere close to what he wants them to be. Gallup and ARIS consistantly rank atheists/seculars at 15-20% of the US population. Ehlers also stated that the poll referenced "God" which is never done, only "god" is asked about. Ehler's implication being that they were talking about Christians, despite the fact that another 15% of the US population are non-Christian theists. Geez, all the sudden, the real polls seem to have a 30% discrepency with Ehler's fantasy world. I would have made up an imaginary poll too if I found out I was that far off.

Then where's he go? Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, and Tse-tung. Despite that he's using the argument he is simultaneously saying is bad to make atheists sound worse than Christians (who by the way are at the still way ahead of the game with the crusades, inquisition, witch hunts, indiginous slaughter, and the holocaust). But what else was wrong with his argument? Of his four all-star players, guess how many were atheists.

One, Stalin was most likely an atheist from all the given information (though there is something questionable about shaking your fist at the sky and calling god names, many think he too was an angry theist who thought he could oust god). Like Hitler, most of these men had very devout religious beleifs that were, in most cases, very responcible for their actions. If Stalin even was an atheist, though, do you (and Ehler) really expect us to beleive that's the reason he killed people? With Christians, it's easy, you always have a mandate from god to clense the earth, but atheist don't do that, we don't have that cop-out.

So, Maggie, you're big buddie here blatenly lies, argues fallaciously, and uses devout theists as his best examples for evil in an attempt to discredit atheist. And yet, you still think this was a good article with many valid points... are you starting to see your problem here yet? Anytime you start with a conclusion and are forced to contort your premises to fit said conclusion, you're going to come across as big an idiot as our friend Lee up there and his slack-jaw mug.

Is the irony of you clinging to the poor logic and unscrupulous tactics of others in an attempt to show a group of free-thinkers the error in our ways and the beauty of your system lost on you? Is your constant misuse of reality supposed to make as a shining beacon of hope for us lost realists? Why don't you try, just once, to gather the facts first... THEN draw your conclusion afterwards? you'll be amazed at what a difference it can make.

[FishBait]

"It's not like Europe was a utopian lovefest free from all malice until religion showed up. Tons of bad stuff went down all the time for all kinds of reasons. "

First off, wow, he has a way with words, second off, um, i think religion has been around a lot longer than the society that we now think of as europe, i mean there was a continent of europe before religion, but there also would have been no people there, i haven't looked this up, but it was always my assumption that even the earliest cultures had religions, they had to explain the sun rising everyday somehow, so the only time there was a europe without religion was probably when there were no people in europe, meaning, yes it probably was a pretty peaceful place, the only thing i can possibly think that could cause such a misinterpretation of facts would be saying europe before christianity came along, and assuming christianity is the only religion is also incredibly stupid,

and yes all those people whether atheist or not didn't kill anyone because of a lack of belief in god, while all the things we cite in our arguments are examples where religion was used as a motive, if we simply added up the number of people killed by christians compared to the number of people killed by the atheists the number killed by christians would be astromically higher, but to my knowledge there has never been anyone killed by an atheist with a lack of belief in god as a motive, and i highly doubt that most mass murderers are atheist, that's just a common christian misconception actually most mass murderers are insane, they have an altered view of reality, hmm, what else alters the view of reality....christians

Carolyn "damn dirty disease ridden christian gave me a cold" Kemp

[Rama]

Valvilis said:

Is the irony of you clinging to the poor logic and unscrupulous tactics of others in an attempt to show a group of free-thinkers the error in our ways and the beauty of your system lost on you? Is your constant misuse of reality supposed to make as a shining beacon of hope for us lost realists? Why don't you try, just once, to gather the facts first... THEN draw your conclusion afterwards? you'll be amazed at what a difference it can make.

POINT: Valvillis!

I thought it was interesting to also note that once upon a time, 5% of the world thought it was round. Once upon a time 5% of the world thought that earth was not the center of the universe. Once upon a time, 5% of humans knew how to make fire.

Valv--You should take what you just said, what fishy just said, what Prof just said, and what I just said and roll them all into one letter to the editor.
For great justice!

[profdunebastard]

I second that-it would be very cool

[FishBait]

especially the part about the damn dirty disease ridden christian giving me a cold *sneeze* *cough* *cough*

[Rama]

www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=466009§ion=news

The crusades are not over.
The spanish inquisition is still going.
Witches are still being burned.
And children are still being raped.
Look, Torquemada is alive and well, and he's sleeping with your wife. The abuses of organized religions are not things of the past. They are contemporary in everything from the catholic abuse scandals to the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001. These are the fruits of faith my friends, and the tree has not stopped growing them. All humanity and all society lives with a shroud over its eyes; it lets them ignore the trends of yesterday manifesting in the tragedies of today. This is why we study history, so we can see these effects and determine their causes. Not all products of religion are bad.
But enough of them are.

[Seany-D]

Rama said:

The abuses of organized religions are not things of the past. They are contemporary in everything from the catholic abuse scandals to the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001. These are the fruits of faith my friends, and the tree has not stopped growing them. All humanity and all society lives with a shroud over its eyes; it lets them ignore the trends of yesterday manifesting in the tragedies of today. This is why we study history, so we can see these effects and determine their causes. Not all products of religion are bad.
But enough of them are.

A friend of mine and I were discussing this topic last night. Now, you know, the religious response to your argument is that these people have strayed from the true purpose of their religion ... they are not to be held as exemplary holders of the faith, whatever that faith may be. Now, while I would tend to counter that religion offers more socially permissible conditions to act in a controversial manner ("Kill 'em in the name of <deity>! Pops says it's cool!"), as well as the fact that the ability to retroactively justify the good acts taken in the name of religion while concurrently writing off every poor act amounts to a jingoistic filtering of what may be the truth inherent in said religion, my friend went a bit further to insist that any arbitrary distinction, be it religious, political (think "lines on the map"), even ethnic, often is used to justify ill actions. I believe that groupthink pervades many of these societal and religious issues that we find ourselves wrestling with today. The more we think beyond the boundaries that we erect on the basis of which sky-daddy you believe in, or what plot of land you're born on, the closer we'll come to self-actualization. And I think that's actually what part of being a freethinker is about.

Naturally, retaining individual identity becomes more difficult, but it should be possible to celebrate diversity without turning differences into an "us vs. them" mentality.

Sean "it would also be nice to be stinkin' rich" Davis