High Court Asked to Review Religious Graduation Speech Case

seathanaich »

Fri Sep 11, 2009 2:12 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

"Since August 2007, Corder has been asking the courts to issue an injunction against the school preventing similar acts that violate the First Amendment rights of students."

So, this young woman, and let's be honest, her family who are either supporting her or putting her up to this, are well aware of what they are doing.

They are just more Liars For Jesus, praying for their democracy to be a theocracy. The rest is just window dressing and obfuscation.

'Friendly Atheist' and Pro-Family Group Wage Public Conflict

seathanaich »

Fri Sep 04, 2009 1:41 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 0

No Believer, that was you - accusing me of having multiple ideas. Can you make a post where you DON'T lie? Is that even possible?

And the people who run this site have to eliminate this ridiculous "flag" censorship. It renders the site virtually useless.

Students Challenged to Study Evolution, Think for Themselves

seathanaich »

Wed Sep 02, 2009 1:31 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 5

Slacker wrote:

"The question shouldn't be whether one believes in evolution or believes in Creationism. The question or statement, would be "Let the Kids hear the evidence and decide for themselves" If you denie the kids the right to learn and decide for themselves, you remove their freedom to think."

Rrrriiightt. And we should waste time in chemistry class teaching alchemy. And we should present astrology as an "alternative" to astronomy. And we should present the "Possessed by Demons" Hypothesis to medical students, so they don't get too focused on bacteria, viruses, etc.

To not do so is to "remove their freedom to think". Or isn't that really just nonsense? When we teach people, we teach them things that have already passed the test of academic scrutiny. "Intelligent Design" has already failed that test both in the scientific community and in the court of law. What more in this charade needs to be done?

'Friendly Atheist' and Pro-Family Group Wage Public Conflict

seathanaich »

Wed Sep 02, 2009 1:17 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 1

Flagged as inappropriate. show To whoever "flagged" two posts by "Believer" where he (a) accused me of lying, and then (b) refused to apologise or admit he had falsely accused me of having multiple user id's: I appreciate your support for my position, but please don't show that support by censoring him. Instead, please just give me a "thumbs up", or him a thumbs down, particularly the post where he lied, which has 17 "up" thumbs, and has been "flagged". By flagging "Believers" posts, you make it appear that I flagged him, when I did not. I don't censor, because people who value the truth should support the free exchange of ideas, and oppose censorship. In a free marketplace of ideas, better ideas will prevail, and bad ideas will look bad just by being what they are. Believer: I don't dignify liars with a response. If you can't even apologise when caught lying you are incapable of reasonable debate (not that you haven't already shown that with your other posts). Your statements and claims are all tainted by your dishonesty and your sinful pride. hide

Students Challenged to Study Evolution, Think for Themselves

seathanaich »

Tue Sep 01, 2009 4:01 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 2

To Mathetes:

"seathanaich, I just want to let you know I did not flag your latest comment. Did you flag mine below?"

No, I consider that cowardly. Censorship is for those whose ideas are poor, and who fear truth.

"I know you removed your own because you are the only one who can delete a post after it's posted. Why remove it?"

Because I'd never removed a post of mine in this format before, and when I saw "remove" I thought that would remove the censor's "flag". Of course, it didn't it removed the whole post. So now I know not to do that again.

"Did you realize you had overlooked the radiometric dating discussion?"

No, the points raised in that were not correct.

"Or were you embarassed by your own name-calling?"

No, I never initiate name-calling. I do respond to it, however. Usually pretty adeptly. However, that means that dialogue has ended, so it's nothing for anyone to be proud of.

'Friendly Atheist' and Pro-Family Group Wage Public Conflict

seathanaich »

Tue Sep 01, 2009 3:50 pm Agree: 7   Disagree: 2

Believer wrote:

"I don't have to change my ID and sneak back on to CP like you in order to take cheap shots at other posters."

NEITHER DO I. IT IS YOU WHO ARE LYING. I ONLY USE 1 ID ON THIS SITE.

But then, you're religious, so lying comes naturally to you. How pathetic that only post where you get positive thumbs up from other readers is one you HAD TO LIE ON TO GET THEM.

NOT ONLY ARE YOUR POSTS POOR, YOU ARE DISHONEST.

Students Challenged to Study Evolution, Think for Themselves

seathanaich »

Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:40 pm Agree: 9   Disagree: 5

Flagged as inappropriate. show Lordshepherd: Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. Evolution describes how life changes. The origin of life is the subject of abiogenesis, and the field of chemistry, not biology. Now that you know that, your "major problem with evolution" has been removed. You can study evolution without it threatening the creation mythology of your religion. Like Germ Theory, Atomic Theory, Plate Tectonic Theory, etc, you can accept that Evolutionary Theory is just one more explanation for reality that the scientific community uses in its work. Your "watchmaker" fallacy has been debunked countless times already. Read Richard Dawkin's "The Blind Watchmaker" if you can't understand the difference between man made items, and living things that can replicate. hide

'Friendly Atheist' and Pro-Family Group Wage Public Conflict

seathanaich »

Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:35 pm Agree: 9   Disagree: 3

u4eeeahh: those who fear the truth resort to lies and censorship. So a truth-fearing censor has flagged the posts he disagrees with. That just proves how weak his beliefs are. Considering who has done the recent posts, it's probably "believer" who did that.

believer: you stated "the primary exception of the sacrificial laws and other levitical laws, but once again the rescinding of these laws in no way shows that God's morals and values have changed."

Um, sorry, it proves that those "morals and values" have changed. The fact that you are willing to lie so blatantly about something demonstrates that your belief system is a lie, and that you value it more than you value truth. This is one of the many reasons that more and more people capable of objective thought are either leaving literal religion, or leaving religion altogether. And considering the effect it has upon people - to convince them that blatant lying is acceptable - that can't happen fast enough.

'Friendly Atheist' and Pro-Family Group Wage Public Conflict

seathanaich »

Sat Aug 29, 2009 11:34 pm Agree: 9   Disagree: 1

What "traditional values" does the Illinois Family Institute promote? Gay-bashing? Slavery? Racially-pure marriages? Arranged marriages? Marriages when the woman can't own property? Dowries? Repealing divorce?

There is no such thing as "traditional values". They change from place to place through time. They are created through dialogue. That's why there is no consensus on what they are or should be.

Survey Profiles Nonreligious Americans

seathanaich »

Fri Aug 21, 2009 2:29 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

Finally, a study which clarifies that the "non-religious" are 75% gnostic atheist, 15% agnostic atheist, and about 10% deist. Thank Center of Inquiry!

Now we can finally ascribe real numbers to the atheists in America. 90% of the 16% who are "non-religious" means that atheists are about 15% atheist. That works out to 45 million people in a population of 300 million.

If those 45 million people to wear an "I'm an Atheist" t-shirt on a different day every week, the entire society would, after a year of moaning and whining, be much more tolerant, and much improved. It would let religionists know just how many of their neighbours, friends, relatives, and co-workers were atheists.

The Root of the Problem

seathanaich »

Tue Jul 21, 2009 4:15 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

Oh, there's a Big Lie in this article all right - but the Theory of Evolution ain't it.

Clearly this sort of "Lying for Jesus" must be aimed at the committed faithful, because it is so blatantly dishonest that any non-religious person can see right through it. I guess the question is: do moderate religious people, who haven't abondoned the use of their brains find this sort of lying offensive? Does it make them wonder why fundamentalist religious apologists are forced to use dishonesty in their thought-process? Does it make moderate religious people want to distance themselves from such blatant dishonesty?

It's odd that Protestant Christians deride the Catholic church for superstition, yet the Catholic church has at least stopped fighting reality and admitted that evolution is irrefutable. Any church that wants to survive outside of Africa needs to accept that evolution is just part of reality.

"Evolution is a world view"? Really? What compels a person to need to lie in this fashion? Is "Plate Tectonics" a world view? Acceptance of Atomic Theory or Germ Theory? Religionists just look like imbeciles when they make such ignorant and easily disproven claims. Is this REALLY how they want to portray themselves, and their religion? The Christian Post debases itself by associating with such backward and flawed thinking.

Evolution has failed? Then why is it the underlying assumption of all modern biology? Who has ever provided one instance where it has failed? Nobody. I understand that the whole Adam and Eve myth falls apart when you accept the reality of evolution, and that this creates a problem for Christians (if there was no fall, what need is there for a redemption). But those are things that Christians need to work through independent of how the world actually works. Saying that evolution isn't how life changes is as intellectually valid as claiming a flat earth, or that other Theories like Atomic and Germ are "just theories".

Racism and Hitler have far more to do with 1000s of years of religious bigotry than with any other cause. Hitler was a product of Christian anti-Jewish animus which only finally ended in 1945 after the orgy of the Final Solution finally repulsed the majority of Christians enough to abandon 2000 years of Jewish persecution.

Is it just ignorance, or deceit, that attempts to link teen suicide with "evolution"? What is the link? Aren't most people still religious? Anyway, enough of this nonsense. There isn't a single honest or valid "opinion" in this entire column.

Christian Attorneys Urge Senate to Vote Against 'Hate Crimes' Bill

seathanaich »

Mon May 04, 2009 5:19 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

The key sentice in this whole article is this one:

"the bill would add violence against individuals based on sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability to the list of federal hate crimes."

Note the word "violence". Who are these people who are trying to protect their "right" to commit violence? Probably the same people who are flagging all the posts they disagree with on this thread. Gay people face enough discrimination as it is, without people opposing this.

And "those who oppose homosexual behavior on legitimate moral and religious grounds".

There are no legitimate moral grounds to "oppose" homosexual behaviour. Just religious ones. The thought of gay sex creeps me out too, but then so do some of the other things I've heard of. Nobody's forcing me to do it, and more importantly I have no right to object if other people want to do it.

"ADF and other opponents of the bill see its passage as one step on â

'Faith Fighters' Developers Launch Sequel to Controversial Game

seathanaich »

Mon May 04, 2009 5:07 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 0

Any Christian who calls for this kind of censorship is no different than the Muslims who do. When people seek to privelege a religion or religion generally, they are providing the justification for others to persecute them for their beliefs. Any person who values freedom and the ability to actually have their own opinions needs to understand that this is on the "acceptable" side of the line of freedom of speech.

Interview: Machine Gun Toting Pastor on His Dangerous Mission

seathanaich »

Mon May 04, 2009 5:03 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

The fact that both the men hurting children and this good man trying to protect them both worship the same god and possess the same faith is a reminder to all of us that it is not faith or religion that determines whether people are good or bad, but our actions.

Obama Vetoes Religion in the Public Square

seathanaich »

Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:51 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

The only thing getting "twisted and reinterpreted" is the definition of what secularism is, and how vital it is to all our other freedoms. People like Mr Connor are lying when they suggest that religion is being "vetoed" from public life. Secularism is a simple concept. The government, which represents EVERYONE, cannot endorse a religion, or religion generally. That means that govt reps and employees have to keep their religion to themselves if it interferes with their ability to DO THEIR JOB. It means that on govt property (bldgs, schools, hospitals) there are no prayers, no idols, no posters, no systemic favouring of certain religious groups, no tax breaks, and no imposing of any religion on people.

This is not a difficult concept. Individuals are free to do what they want on their own property. But the state must be neutral and treat all equally. The alternative is the sort of theocracy that people like Mr Connor seem blissfully unaware is the worst type of society to live in. Just look around the world today, or at a history book. The founders of America were intentionally creating a secular state, and their reasons were as sound then as they are today.

Christians Speak Out on Newsweek's Gloomy Cover Story

seathanaich »

Thu Apr 16, 2009 6:25 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

"The so-called Judeo-Christian consensus of the last millennium has given way to a post-modern, post-Christian, post-Western cultural crisis which threatens the very heart of our culture,'" Meacham writes."

No, it doesn't threaten the "heart" of the culture, it threatens religionists who apparently have doubts about their afterlife mythology if any of the people they know actually possess a different opinion. How weak can your convictions be if they waver when you slip from near-concensus to three-quarters majority?

The effects of decreasing religion, and moderating religion, are all positive ones. Less domestic abuse, less crime, less sexism, less racism, less crime, less teen-sex, less teen pregnancy, less infidelity, less marital breakdown, less homophobia, more tolerance, less bigotry - all these things occur when more people reject religion, more people become atheist, and those that remain religious become more moderate. Yet every time such statistics are announced, the religious continue to act surprised by them.

What "Christian" values are people here lamenting? Slavery? Misogyny? Death by stoning for non-beleivers? There isn't a single moral or ethical value that is unique to religion in general or Christianity specifically. Religion exists as a creation and afterlife mythology, full stop. Falsely attributing other qualities to it, like "love" or "morality" was a trick done by priests and princes in order to get the little people to accept it without objective analysis. "Rally around, the enemy is attacking. Okay, now go back to the fields, and bring me a goat to eat - I mean 'sacrifice'." Yeesh!

The reality is that in a post tribal society, the mechanism that united the tribe - the tribal religion and god - is no longer needed. The real values of civilisation are the rule of law, freedom of expression and speech, democracy, honesty and tranparency in governance, and individual rights, all of which are the opposite of what religion teaches and stands for. These values have formed the basis of "western" civilisation since the 1700s, and will continue to shape the future of humanity as they struggle against the barbarism, sexism, racism, anti-knowledge, and anti-science which used to be lead by Christianity, but which is now lead globally by Islam.

Landowners Sue Tenn. County for Rejecting Bible Park

seathanaich »

Thu Apr 16, 2009 5:55 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

You'd think that this God character that people keep talking about would have stepped in and done something about this. After all, doesn't this being respond to prayers? Or have a "plan"? Funny how invisible gods and non-existent ones seem to have so much in common.

Christians Urged to Pray Ahead of 'Pivotal' Elections in Indonesia, India

seathanaich »

Wed Apr 08, 2009 6:29 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Yes, by all means engage in useless prayer, rather than doing anything real. Just because prayer has accomplished precisely nothing in the entire history of humanity is no reason to abandon it now!

Ex-Muslim Warns West of Plot to Impose Islamic Law

seathanaich »

Wed Apr 08, 2009 6:26 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 3

Just look at all the comments on this article. Christian jihadis and holy-warriors, all spoiling for a fight. All thinking that more religion, more faith, and more violence is the answer. Don't any of you people understand the consequences of what you are wishing for? Can't any of you figure out what the solution is?

Every time a Christian fights for privelege for "faith", that helps radical and violent Muslims get the same priveleges. Every time a Christian wishes for more "God" in America, what they are doing is wishing for more theocracy, and facilitating more Muslim violence. Every time a Christian fights for faith-based schools, they are ensuring that Muslim immigrant children can be raised without any contact with American society.

The "good old days" when the whole community was exactly the same religion are over people. Wake up to this reality! If you don't want others to tell you what to do, why do you think you have some right to dictate to them?

American Christians who want to tear down the separation of church and state, and who think that "secularism" is a dirty word, be careful what you wish for. But wanting a Christian theocracy, you are enabling all the Muslim ones which do not hesitate to use violence.

Ban on 'Da Vinci Code' Sequel Could 'Boomerang', Says Archbishop

seathanaich »

Mon Mar 30, 2009 2:57 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

The Catholic Church are the custodians of the most pervasive and successful body of fiction on the planet - the dogma of Christianity. They exist for one reason only - to take money from people by selling them the lie of an afterlife myth that has been cobbled together from earlier Jewish, Greek, Egyptian, and Mesopotamian mythologies. How is the fiction of Dan Brown any more imaginary than the 2000 year old fiction of the Catholic Church? How can any religion cry foul when people like Dan Brown write stories? At least Brown has the honesty to admit that his work is fictional entertainment - something that priests and preachers will never admit.