1. Is Obama the Antichrist?

Comment #286767 by eh-theist on November 19, 2008 at 10:41 am

You must remember that definitions change with numbers.

If one person believes in a mythical being, they're deluded, if it is millions, we call it religion.

If one person believes something crazy, we institutionalize them, if many people share that crazy belief, they build their own institutions.

If one person thinks he's the anticrist, they're nuts. If many people believe he's the antichrist, he's the antichrist.

Truths are determined by the majority - I think that's one of the laws of science.

As Richard would say (he wouldn't say it, but it gives it credibility - and I say that only to point out the absurdity of the article), in a debate it is possible that the "truth" is somewhere in between the beliefs of the two people debating but it is also possible that one of them is outright wrong. It follows that MANY people could be wrong (or nuts).

Off topic - my in-laws couldn't come over for dinner on Tuesday because they had to go to a meeting to decide on a new insurer for their church.

(I wanted to ask why god was canceling their policy but my wife wouldn't allow it.)

2. Giving Up on God

Comment #286758 by eh-theist on November 19, 2008 at 10:32 am

Is Kathleen suggesting that the "founding documents" are something they are not?

And Judeo-Christian values are hardly Christian.

3. Leukaemia case raises hopes of possible AIDS cure

Comment #285718 by eh-theist on November 17, 2008 at 1:38 pm

ev-love: Nicky is right - you don't want to turn your back on such a vicious being.

Though, I tried turning around to see if god was behind me and made myself dizzy.

Where's the master of hide-and-seek?

4. Atheism, a positive pillar

Comment #285678 by eh-theist on November 17, 2008 at 1:05 pm

The example used of the competing billboards says nothing about Downey's avoidance of being "strident".

The billboard was the "strident" action by the non-believers. The response (as most of us will do) was a "proof" that we can be (and usually are) better than "they" are.

To suggest that we should not question their beliefs or point out how silly they are is absurd (almost as absurd as their beliefs are).

It is not much different from Richard Dawkins saying "Belief in the supernatural is silly" and then engaging in conversation with people who disagree.

We (non-believers) have nothing to prove - we don't claim to be as/more moral or ethical, we just are.

It is time to speak up and make some noise (like the billboards) - you'd be surprised at who joins you. Not everyone in church is a believer!

(I also didn't realize that Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Barker, Stenger, etc. had "passed".)

5. SC priest: No communion for Obama supporters

Comment #284651 by eh-theist on November 15, 2008 at 2:45 pm

j.mills - I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying that the bible isn't clear about everything and it isn't free of contradictions?

That can't be so - the book is the inerrant and literal word of god!

At least the core components of the bible are still true, right? There can't be any question that jesus was born of a virgin and whether or not he was resurrected and ascended to heaven or christians wouldn't believe a word of it.

What? Really? There are differing accounts?

Fuck.. now all I can believe in is a talking snake, a 600 year old boat builder and in the existence of unicorns?

6. Atheism/Agnosticism Plus Compassion Equals Humanism

Comment #284118 by eh-theist on November 14, 2008 at 11:48 am

I can hardly see the value in giving credit for "community" when religion has literally destroyed a great number of communities.

Commerce (whether you like it or not) has built better communities (and even prevented religious wars).

7. Richard Dawkins: An Exclusive Profile

Comment #283253 by eh-theist on November 13, 2008 at 10:20 am

Part II is on the site too.

http://www.t5m.com/richard-dawkins/richard-dawkins-an-exclusive-profile-part-ii.html

The "lo" quality version definitely works.

For the full "channel"...

http://www.t5m.com/richard-dawkins/

Note "Richard Dawkins Competition
Coming soon!"

8. Japanese researchers make brain tissues from stem cells

Comment #279835 by eh-theist on November 6, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Why do they even bother with "Embryonic stem cells are harvested by destroying a viable embryo, a process that some people find unacceptable."

"Some people", as listed above, don't care about suffering of actual people - they'd much rather bring any "potential" humans into being so they can also endure the suffering.

This is like reporting on a new discovery supporting evolution and including "Evolution is only a theory and not all scientists agree that it occurs." or some bullshit like that.

9. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #278966 by eh-theist on November 5, 2008 at 12:57 pm

I'd like to see the debate - from what I read, the Rabbi briefly mentioned that same crap that they all use.

Hitchens, as usual, with his wit..

"Shepherds don't look after sheep because they love them — although I do think some shepherds like their sheep too much. They look after their sheep so they can, first, fleece them and second, turn them into meat. That’s much more like the priesthood as I know it."

Sorry to everyone who hasn't read article yet.. I just spoiled it.

10. Fred Phelps's son is an atheist: Running from hell

Comment #277322 by eh-theist on November 3, 2008 at 11:59 am

moose: I'm doubtful that Nate thinks that his father was "godsent".

If only he caused no harm to others, I could agree with you.

History_Junky: You're right on that one. I'm not sure we still use ambulances to transport bodies, though ;-)

11. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #274749 by eh-theist on October 30, 2008 at 11:02 am

I think everyone missed Roger's point.

Wikinomics is all about 'truth' by consensus (which is how faithheads argue - "how can millions of people be wrong" when speaking of the number of believers but never when speaking about the number of scientists who know evolution is a fact).

Visit the following page and let them know that it is accurate (click the link near the bottom of the page)
http://www.wikihow.com/Debate-Against-Evolution

Truthiness depends on you!

12. Richard Dawkins embarrassed after death and subsequent resurrection

Comment #273885 by eh-theist on October 29, 2008 at 11:31 am

Does this mean that Richard will never boil a goat in its mother's milk? (That's the most important commandment of them all!)

13. Interview with Richard Dawkins on fairy tales and retirement

Comment #272449 by eh-theist on October 27, 2008 at 1:05 pm

I haven't had a chance to watch the video but from what I have read, I think the real issue is how it is presented to the children and how it is reinforced. If the parents/teachers pass it off as "true", it will have a different effect than if they are told that they are just stories.

Richard's point above (and on the other thread) would be more a word of caution - intuition can be completely wrong. Research needs to be done.

Reading a number of "fairy tales", I would guess, would somewhat negate the seeming truthfulness of any of them. Reading the same book a number of times and not having anything to compare it with is a problem.

Just as teaching religions comparatively might negate some of the threat of dogmatic belief, letting kids read other myths and fairy tales might also hamper the efforts of parents to indoctrinate their children. (Wishful thinking? Possibly. Let's see the research before we assume anything to be true.)

14. Interview with Richard Dawkins on fairy tales and retirement

Comment #272433 by eh-theist on October 27, 2008 at 12:17 pm

I'm appalled at your statement, mordacious. How can you claim that wizards are not real until you've studied, seriously, in wizardry? If you have read the book and still believe this, you have taken it out of context.

15. Recommended Reading: Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment

Comment #268882 by eh-theist on October 22, 2008 at 11:27 am

Odd. I was brought up that society couldn't survive without god. Was I lied to?

What is so important about a book like this is that many "believers" firmly believe that non-believers are murderers, rapists, thieves, etc.

I know this isn't news to any of us, but this book goes a LONG way to show 1.) how secular these societies are and 2.) how much better they are for it.

Great book. Just ordered a copy for a friend too!

16. Review: Religulous

Comment #265902 by eh-theist on October 17, 2008 at 1:35 pm

tieInterceptor:
Never?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0815241/releaseinfo

Mind you, I'm not a "pro" member - it may say more in there.

17. Faith Attack

Comment #265898 by eh-theist on October 17, 2008 at 1:32 pm

Someone removed the main point that Clifford had in this article - it must have been cut off.

Clifford said that if atheists had their way, "they'd have a drug-using gay man performing abortions in your home while his husband rapes your wife and steals all your valuables".

18. Review: Religulous

Comment #265814 by eh-theist on October 17, 2008 at 10:27 am

Count,
A good friend of mine and his girlfriend tagged along with my wife and I when we went to see it. His family is religious and he has similar beliefs to those that I suspect your girlfriend has.

He loved the movie (I think more than I did - I thought that Bill shouldn't have let certain issues go so easily). I wouldn't suggest that he is now a non-believer but he said it gives him reason to see how it can be damaging to society. He is, however, going to meet us in London (Ontario) to see Religulous again on Sunday - he thinks it'll be funnier the second time. His girlfriend isn't attending this time - she isn't a believer and thinks that the movie is more sad (try leaving the theatre with the only thought being "that was funny" - it's not, it is really sad and scary) than anything.

My mom and dad are going to see it - he's Catholic, she's Anglican and they believe that any faith that can't withstand questioning isn't worth having. (I didn't just steal that from the movie - there are lots of people who actually claim that).

19. Review: Religulous

Comment #265734 by eh-theist on October 17, 2008 at 8:44 am

Rod - I just checked the Cineplex site -
Cineplex Odeon Westmount 6
785 Wonderland Road South, London
(519) 474-2257

Playing now.

20. Review: Religulous

Comment #265722 by eh-theist on October 17, 2008 at 8:34 am

Rod - London, Ontario? If you say the "nearest major city" and refer to "London", you can't be all that far from me! (Hint: The almost major city of Sarnia).

I was in Toronto a couple weeks ago and saw it there.

dvespertilio - I think we're underestimating the power of the movie.

I do agree that there are people who will say "he just interviewed the wackos" - but when given the opportunity to respond to that, ask questions. "Do you believe in the talking snake?" "Do you know when the bible was written and by who?" "What parts of the bible do you think are true?" (if they say all of the bible is true, stone their kids!) You'll have to lead them down the path to realize that what they believe is at least as absurd!

The "he's not talking about my god" is easily dismantled with "define your god and I'll explain why it almost certainly doesn't exist" (or why it doesn't need to be called "god" in instances where they say "nature").

21. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253404 by eh-theist on September 24, 2008 at 12:02 pm

SharonMcT: I don't know where I stand on the abortion issue. I have always wondered where people, like yourself, would stand on the issue in a situation as follows.

Man and woman engage in dastardly deeds and said woman becomes pregnant.

Man wants the child, woman does not.

Should the woman be forced to carry the baby to term?

Conversely...

Man does not want the child. Woman does.

Should the man be able to get out of the financial/legal responsibility of the child?

22. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253396 by eh-theist on September 24, 2008 at 11:55 am

I once dated a girl that loved being "punished" (why do I get the feeling that I'm not following the topic?)

Why are we into knocking Sarah Palin? She's probably right - the world will probably end within 50 years (if she gets in).

Maybe I shouldn't type when I'm drunk.

23. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253359 by eh-theist on September 24, 2008 at 11:11 am

"I don't care what your beliefs are, you can't change the fact that when you have an abortion, you kill a life." Means you care what someone's beliefs are.

Not everyone BELIEVES that an embryo (or a fetus, even) is a "life".

"Abortion is the only medical procedure that would be against someone's religion... " is not accurate. The range of religidiocy stretches from being against blood transfusions to being against mouth-to-mouth resuscitation!

24. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253302 by eh-theist on September 24, 2008 at 9:28 am

Are they suggesting that if people are referred for abortions, there won't be enough people having babies to keep the maternity wards open?

Getting the church out of hospitals is a great idea. Getting the money donated to churches put towards the building/staffing/maintaining of hospitals is an even better one :)

25. B.C. health official says mumps outbreak began with unimmunized religious group

Comment #237884 by eh-theist on August 27, 2008 at 11:26 am

If only it affected those not immunized in that community.

Sadly the costs are the responsibilty of the province and country and the outbreak does affect people outside this group.

If scientists aren't going to be supported in their attempts to find cures, maybe they should dedicate some time to helping people like this to an early demise.

26. Science Has No Place in Politics

Comment #237881 by eh-theist on August 27, 2008 at 11:23 am

This is absolutely sad. I remember watching the discussion with Richard and Lawrence regarding the ScienceDebate.

Unfortunately it was widely expected that they would not attend. Politics is not about knowing something, it is about pulling the wool over someone's eyes. It isn't hard to see why neither of these candidates accepted.

27. Monkeys Enjoy Giving To Others, Study Finds

Comment #237436 by eh-theist on August 26, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Sciros:
Which was on vacation? The deer or the ringtail lemurs?

28. Monkeys Enjoy Giving To Others, Study Finds

Comment #237420 by eh-theist on August 26, 2008 at 12:56 pm

Rod:

Great story - I wrote an app to do just that. An auto-dialer would call my place and tell me that I was selected for a free cruise and to hold on the line for important information. I was able to get the toll free number from them. For 19 days, the system dialed using 3 of my 4 phone lines. When it detected an answer it would say "Please hold as we have an important message for you" and would leave the line active until they hung up. As I really did have an important message for them, it would redial. Not once did they wait long enough for me to tell them the important information!

Unfortunately they changed their toll free number 19 days in so I never got to tell them that I wasn't interested in the cruise.

29. Porn pastor's wife vows to stand by him

Comment #237410 by eh-theist on August 26, 2008 at 12:41 pm

This avatar works just as well :)

30. Porn pastor's wife vows to stand by him

Comment #237403 by eh-theist on August 26, 2008 at 12:32 pm

I'm just waiting for the family to find a doctor who says "Wait, he wasn't lying, he really did (does?) have cancer but he could have only known because god told him."

(I'm going to take a picture of my shirt and change my avatar...
Why do criminals find god in jail? Have you read the Bible? That's where he'd be!)

31. Q&A with Richard Dawkins after lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #237366 by eh-theist on August 26, 2008 at 11:53 am

I have to disagree with you (okay, I agree, the avatar I'm using is disturbing.. even if you don't know Ted) - isthatclear's comments should not be removed.

As theists will argue "god created evil so we would know what was good", we need to see what complete inanity (replace with insanity for isthatclear) is to show how intelligent people are (and can be).

I applaud those who disagree with statements made on this site but isthatclear hardly makes a statement or question that steps away from completely absurd.

To go off topic but on topic in another sense - the question of sex: (Yes, I like it.)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/

The site is full of useful stuff (some you may not agree with but it is well put together).

Also.. Kenneth Miller's "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" is good. (Also on PBS)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

Take a look at what Kenneth Miller has to say - he defends a god hardly worth defending but at least he is a major proponent for evolution and equally hostile to ID.

32. Imagine No Religion' signs to go up around town

Comment #237008 by eh-theist on August 25, 2008 at 4:58 pm

The FFRF is an excellent organization. (They even accept Canadian members!)

The annual convention, this year, is in Chicago. I'm heading there - Daniel Dennett is one of the speakers.

The event is listed under "events" on this site (I only wish that meant RD is going to be there).

Dan Barker is a wonderful writer and speaker (co-president of FFRF) and their "Freethought Today" newspaper is a good read (don't believe me? get a free copy mailed to you - visit the www.ffrf.org).

Now, to make my message more on topic, the FFRF has signs in different places across the country. Their "stained glass" billboard (Imagine No Religion) is much better (personally) than the one pictured in this article.

33. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #233256 by eh-theist on August 19, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Let me also add that having Lorne Gunter agree with you means little to a group like this.

And simply because Lorne types it doesn't make it right - though it almost certainly makes it suspect. Take a look at Lorne's ability to get facts straight in a number of previous columns.

Off to Bible study I go (seriously! - it is the best book at converting the faithful) - have a great evening.

34. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #233254 by eh-theist on August 19, 2008 at 2:23 pm

Interesting that this is the approach you take. We aren't talking about a dictation of do's and do not's - we're talking about a warning that "if you choose to do something, or in this case, not do something, that knowingly puts a patient at risk, you could be at fault - no matter what your religion or morals tell you".

The issue isn't related to sex-selecting abortions or about steroids - it is about issues relating to birth control (therapies for women, surgery for both men and women), HPV vaccinations and the like.

Even our HRC wouldn't find a doctor guilty of a violation for not referring a patient for an abortion because it isn't the gender the patient wants or for not prescribing steroids that were not medically necessary.

This issue is about public health, period. To imply that it is anything else is, well - I wish there was a word for this, oh, wait, there is - delusional.

35. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #233113 by eh-theist on August 19, 2008 at 6:41 am

skip - I didn't think that we needed to point to the fact that some doctors push their beliefs on their patients or openly discriminate.

The draft actually handles a number of issues. Doctors have often turned away patients because they are too disabled or other reasons (ie. may not accept a doctor's recommendations or may not use the service of the doctor often enough).

I'm not sure what you are trying to suggest by "the doctor's hand is being forced in this case". Doctors should NEVER have been given the option to object - they should always do what is in the best interest of their patient regardless of what the doctor believes.

36. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #232708 by eh-theist on August 18, 2008 at 2:11 pm

And before I get attacked for suggesting that Doctors should refer people to get abortions, let me state this:

I WOULD NEVER HAVE AN ABORTION (because I'm male).

Enjoy!

37. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #232699 by eh-theist on August 18, 2008 at 1:57 pm

Being from Ontario and aware of what is going on here, I think the point is being completely missed.

Doctor's are not being forced to do anything. They have been given the ability to NOT do things based on their "beliefs" and the government is now seeing how wrong it was to give them that option.

Doctors are not being asked to do things which solid science backs as being unsafe for the patient. The new changes are simply stopping MDs from HARMING or putting their patient in danger of potential harm by objecting on moral or religious grounds. (The "moral" objection is a religious injection that is to imply that morals only come from religion. "Religious" is used because we, as caring Canadians, provide undue respect to such.)

Doctors are currently able to "object" and leave it at that. It has worked, quite well, in getting their "way" as many communities in Ontario are under serviced (I say this because I do work with the local healthcare professionals recruiting team) and patients can't really turn to other Doctors.

In my community a local "clinic" has made it clear that they are "not against" referring patients for abortions and that they will "consider" birth control options for patients. Some public backlash has happened - local Doctors (sky-fairy believing ones) have called for a government audit and for the public to boycott the clinic.

Unfortunately the clinic is now to a point where it is almost impossible to get in (I guess Doctors thought that they didn't have to worry about supply and demand :) )

During a recent meeting with local Doctors (who support our quest to find other practitioners), one of them said "If the government didn't give us an option to object, we'd be better off. I have to object because if I referred one of my patients and someone in my church found out, I'd be ostracized." The reality is that we have Doctors who feel that they are being FORCED to OBJECT!

The new requirements would force true objectors to refer to someone who would be more interested in the patient's needs than in their own personal beliefs. At that point, Doctors would simply prescribe birth control or refer patients for service where it was the best solution for the patient. We are headed in the right direction.

38. Poll: Should the motto 'In God We Trust' be removed from U.S. currency?

Comment #230806 by eh-theist on August 15, 2008 at 6:58 am

To answer the question of 'do atheists really care that it says "In god we trust"'? Or rather, 'are we offended by it'?

Speaking for myself (and sometimes others), I think it is less about being offended and more about what the phrase enables.

The phrase gives "believers" the argument that "The US is a Xtian nation".

It also is a step in the wrong direction. One little thing enables the next. Just as many Xtian churches will fund legal challenges that fundamentalist churches often face because they feel that any "rights" that are taken away from another church is the beginning of all churches losing rights.

The "in god we trust" - if it means nothing, then it would "mean nothing" to get rid of it.

However, I don't think it is the most productive thing we could be doing with our time (surely more productive than praying) but it isn't a worthless desire.

39. Dawkin 'bout a revolution

Comment #225625 by eh-theist on August 7, 2008 at 6:13 am

Comment #225600 by Chris Davis

Great points Chris - I'm sold! Let's do it!

Whoops.. you were suggesting otherwise? Sorry, I couldn't help but think you were listing all the reasons TO do it.

40. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #225253 by eh-theist on August 6, 2008 at 11:18 am

Actions like these are what justify the idea of atheists (and concerned citizens who "believe" but also know that science is what should be taught in science class) banding together - following the out campaign or aligning with the brights, etc.

I know many attack the idea because it gives the appearance of another religion but I am a member of many groups that have no religious association and have never been considered religious but fight/work for common goals.

I must get back to work - I prayed all morning but god didn't do any of my work so now I'm twice as far behind.

41. Faith is not the answer

Comment #221189 by eh-theist on July 29, 2008 at 12:19 pm

Rabbit (I think he forgot the t in his name) may have a point - we, as individuals, are too materialistic. We should sell everything and give the money to the church as the church has done nothing but positive things!

I'll start by selling all of my fiction books (I have a habit (well, I have one of them too) of borrowing fiction books from hotel rooms).

I apologize for the nonsense but Rabbit started it.

42. Catholics To Pope: Lift Birth Control Ban

Comment #220407 by eh-theist on July 28, 2008 at 12:03 pm

Churches require their members to not use condoms because they want (need) them to procreate. The more kids a family has, the greater number it indoctrinates, the greater chances of survival (financially anyway) the church has.

If anyone needs to be using condoms it is these kinds of people.

However, they know where their bread (before transubstantiation) comes from.

43. Historian predicts the end of 'science superpowers'

Comment #217474 by eh-theist on July 24, 2008 at 11:32 am

I'm not so sure I disagree with the general idea of this message.

Science is one of the greatest (if not THE greatest) driving forces behind economies. With the direction that the US Government is going, it is quite likely that the "scientific superpowers" will be (have been?) matched/surpassed by other nations. I think China is a good example.

Changes need to be made in our direction (ie. teach the controversy - JUST KIDDING) and they need to be made soon.

44. How Anecdotal Evidence Can Undermine Scientific Results

Comment #216703 by eh-theist on July 23, 2008 at 12:32 pm

Funny this article would appear now. I was having dinner with a new Physician (we are trying to entice MDs to come to our city to set up their practice) and the organizer of the dinner told about how her son never had an earache, cold, etc., until he had his vaccinations and so she didn't get her youngest child vaccinated and she tells people her "story" to "help" them.

The doctor looked at her and said "it is a terrible misfortune of others around you that you see a relationship where one likely does not exist." He then went on to say that she is not only risking her child but the community as a whole.

My family doctor always responded to the "my child never got sick until they got their 'shots'" with "your child was never 5 years old until they got their shots but I hardly believe the shots made them that way." (I will apologize to her for not remembering the "age" that she referred to or the exact wording she used.)

45. Good Science Writers: Richard Dawkins

Comment #216635 by eh-theist on July 23, 2008 at 11:02 am

It is, too, possible that people reading the title believe that the metaphor, itself, explains it completely and reading the book is somewhat unnecessary.

46. Good Science Writers: Richard Dawkins

Comment #216613 by eh-theist on July 23, 2008 at 10:42 am

Having read most of his(your) books (The God Delusion, The Extended Phenotype, The Selfish Gene, The Ancestor's Tale, A Devil's Chaplin, Unweaving the Rainbow and Climbing Mount Improbable) (I'm going to read The Blind Watchmaker next - though after reading your post, I wonder if I'm going to be let down ;-) ), I'd hardly venture to say the title is not ideal.

One could argue that there are equally as valid/ideal titles but for anyone who has read that book (and possibly others of yours/Richard Dawkins), they'd hardly leave thinking the title was misleading or not "spot on".

Maybe I should have prefaced all this by saying that I had first become interested in your/Richard Dawkins writings from "Growing Up in the Universe" and other videos - where Mount Improbable was explained in simple terms (for my simple mind?). Reading the books only further increased my understanding. To disagree with the title, I would have to suggest that one disagrees with the book itself or doesn't understand it.

47. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #203006 by eh-theist on July 2, 2008 at 8:31 am

Robert O'Brien said...

"Chaucer, Shakespeare, Dickens, Newton..."

Yes, they were Christians, and the old blood was strong with them. Just like it was with my English great-great-grandmother. :)

Wait... is this not a case of argumentum ad verecundiam?

48. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #202996 by eh-theist on July 2, 2008 at 8:06 am

I'm not fond of the claim that only dumb people believe in "god".

It is more commonly found in lower social classes than in the educated AND affluent population.

Oppressed people often find comfort in the familiarity of oppression as victims of abuse can become fond of their abusers. The oppression of religion isn't a far stretch from the state oppression as is found in China.

Simply stating that Christianity is increasing doesn't make it correct. Popularity has never been a requirement for fact.

49. Charles Darwin was not the father of atheism

Comment #201852 by eh-theist on June 30, 2008 at 10:30 am

You guys all missed the point.

Atheism has no father - it was born by means of immaculate conception.

50. God hates Mars

Comment #200295 by eh-theist on June 27, 2008 at 9:07 am

Epeeist's comment about comments being deleted is now on Standfortruthonline.com but all others have been deleted.

I've been "banned" from posting comments, too. I suspect that Vaal, too, has been banned.

Are fundies allowed to redefine words (ie. truth) like that?