Western Expresso

[Shinook]

Originally Posted by vid

Well that's good.



Thank you for calling my experiences uninformed. I'll be sure to alter my perception of reality to fit your worldview next time someone tells me to accept Jesus. I'll replace the word Jesus with "these delightful macaroons" and have myself a splendid evening indeed.

You seem to have a real problem with Christians, and are borderline mocking them with your constant snyde and condescending comments towards them. What happened, did a Christian run over your puppy or something?

[chrisallard5454]

Originally Posted by Cam

Never thought I'd have to weigh in on religion on this forum, but here it goes:



While it's true that many Christians are focused on converting others (Jehovah's witnesses, etc), you shouldn't paint them all with the same brush. Many Christians are unconcerned with the beliefs of others.

While I thank you for your attempt at being unbiased in your approach, I must again way in. As a Christian using the bible as their source of teaching, it is almost instinctual to care about the beliefs of others. However most people would understand that this doesn't give us the right to jump all over people and try to convert them. I believe it comes down to something called common courtesy.
I have found (from my own experience) that when people find out that you are a believer, they often begin to question you about your beliefs. This is usually done in a polite matter, as it is intriguing to learn something new.

Originally Posted by Cam

I would like to clear something up about discrimination here. You are equating religeous discrimination with things like racism and sexism, things that someone is born with and can have no negative effect on them. However religeous discrimination is more like discriminating against the racists or the flat world believers. It's discriminating against beliefs that someone adopts later in life and can (although certainly not always) have a negative effect on one's character (example: fundamentalism).

There is a flaw in this argument. With your line of thinking it is not possible to be discriminatory against transvestites, or homosexuals, etc. While liking someone of the same sex is more often than not a genetic trait, becoming someone of the opposite sex is a life choice similar in nature to finding a faith and committing it. Do you mean to tell me it is OK to discriminate against people because of important decisions that they have made in their lives?
Also Religion isn't a thought process that can be avoided and thus disregarded as you so claim. Religion is an inherent part of life. Choosing to be an Atheist is a Religious practice, one that I would say when investigated for its principles could potentially be far more negative in nature than being a believer in any other religion.

Originally Posted by Cam

Being as intelligent people don't have self-contradictory beliefs, I highly doubt that he is intelligent. And being as the psychology of religion has shown that your relationship with God is actually a relationship with your own ego (thus God's opinions are always your own), I also highly doubt he is down to earth. I've never met the man, so I'll withhold such a judgement until I have, although I do have expectations. I hope I'm pleasantly surprised.

You would be very pleasantly surprised. Interestingly enough, being a Christian was undoubtedly not a part of the criteria for being hired. Remember this man has been on the Police force since 1987, has been a part of many divisions within the force. Though I don't know him well enough to say whether or not he could be qualified as a genious, I could hazard a guess that based on his qualifications, he is a fairly smart individual.
Now your post only highlights your own ignorance about Christians and how they live their lives. A big part of being a believer is submitting to God's will and committing to something that you would prefer not to do. Now to those who don't believe in God, I would understand if this in their mind implies lunacy, however this does not fall at all in line with your statement that
"the psychology of religion has shown that your relationship with God is actually a relationship with your own ego (thus God's opinions are always your own)".

Originally Posted by Cam

It's not practical to be intimately familiar with every church in every religeous denomination, so we're going to have to go by the general teachings of Christianity.

So you claim that it is OK to be ignorant of the subject at hand, and yet come up with the answers despite this ignorance. Even an unintelligent man such as myself (What with my contradictory beliefs and all) could see the flaw in that statement.

Originally Posted by Cam

And could you please remember that Freedom of Religion does not mean Protection from Criticism.

I would gladly accept criticism of my beliefs, as such a thing only opens the door to conversation. What does offend me however, are ignorant and generalized statements that hold no water what so ever. Remember that the majority of the statements on this site have not been against Christianity but against those who believe in it. If you want to delve into the Bible and start playing the "I'll show you the contradiction's, the lies, etc." game then I am very much OK with that, actually I would warn you that I very much would look forward to it. Just remember I was an Atheists once, so I know every argument in the book. However if you want to do so (which I doubt you do) then let's do it over PM so not to lead these people to falsely believe that I am trying to convert them.

Originally Posted by Cam

All of that is fine, however, when he is being interviewed as the chief of police, he is representing the City of Winnipeg and should conduct himself as such. I for one am concerned about how the rest of the country will see us. If city officials are allowed to spout religeous ideas when they represent the city, then Winnipeg will be increasingly associated with the social conservatives of Alberta/Saskatchewan.

Winnipeg has a negative stigma across the country, this stigma is wrong (Winnipeg is awesome), but we still need to advertise ourselves well. This man is doing irreparable damage to our reputation and I won't stand for it. Winnipeg must stand on the right side of history as socially progressive.

I don't even know what to say here.

[vid]

I should have known better than to make a comment that might be considered offensive, having been the victim of offensive comments myself.

I won't say I'm sorry for what I said because I am done with apologizing for the apparently heinous crime of being me, but I do regret making the post that started this.

[chrisallard5454]

Originally Posted by vid

I should have known better than to make a comment that might be considered offensive, having been the victim of offensive comments myself.

I won't say I'm sorry for what I said because I am done with apologizing for the apparently heinous crime of being me, but I do regret making the post that started this.

Don't regret it. I have no problem with you stating your beliefs. Just be aware that if your perceptions on other peoples beliefs are inaccurate then people will correct them.
There is nothing wrong with choosing your belief, just try not to judge others for choosing theirs.
This to me is nothing more than a discussion. No hard feelings whatsoever, on my part at least.

[vid]

I didn't "choose" to be atheist though. It is the result of being unable to accept any religions once I learned that there was more than one religion out there to accept. I was unable to understand how one could be true when different cultures had different religions. Either the description of god and how life began is extremely contextual and words can mean virtually anything, or all descriptions of god and how life began outside of those tested by science are wrong. Maybe God does exist and is just fucking with us? I don't know.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by Cam

All of that is fine, however, when he is being interviewed as the chief of police, he is representing the City of Winnipeg and should conduct himself as such. I for one am concerned about how the rest of the country will see us. If city officials are allowed to spout religeous ideas when they represent the city, then Winnipeg will be increasingly associated with the social conservatives of Alberta/Saskatchewan.

Winnipeg has a negative stigma across the country, this stigma is wrong (Winnipeg is awesome), but we still need to advertise ourselves well. This man is doing irreparable damage to our reputation and I won't stand for it. Winnipeg must stand on the right side of history as socially progressive.

I don't really see anything offside about Clunis' interview and what he said. Just last week, I saw both Obama and Romney talk about praying before making important decisions. I doubt that when the election is over, the winner is going to turn the US into some sort of theocracy (and the same holds true in our case).

As for being socially progressive, I don't know how being a Christian and being socially progressive are mutually exclusive. Heck, Jesus' life and message was probably the most socially progressive at the time (and even now haha): Feed the poor, heal the sick, look after the elderly, etc. etc...

[Cam]

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

While I thank you for your attempt at being unbiased in your approach, I must again way in. As a Christian using the bible as their source of teaching, it is almost instinctual to care about the beliefs of others. However most people would understand that this doesn't give us the right to jump all over people and try to convert them. I believe it comes down to something called common courtesy.
I have found (from my own experience) that when people find out that you are a believer, they often begin to question you about your beliefs. This is usually done in a polite matter, as it is intriguing to learn something new.

Actually wasn't trying to be unbiased, I certainly have a bias against religion, just not against the religious themselves.

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

There is a flaw in this argument. With your line of thinking it is not possible to be discriminatory against transvestites, or homosexuals, etc. While liking someone of the same sex is more often than not a genetic trait, becoming someone of the opposite sex is a life choice similar in nature to finding a faith and committing it. Do you mean to tell me it is OK to discriminate against people because of important decisions that they have made in their lives?
Also Religion isn't a thought process that can be avoided and thus disregarded as you so claim. Religion is an inherent part of life. Choosing to be an Atheist is a Religious practice, one that I would say when investigated for its principles could potentially be far more negative in nature than being a believer in any other religion.

I may not have been clear enough here. First off, we are using the word 'discriminate' in different ways. I am using the word in the broadest sense that include simply not liking someone (the way vid was discriminating). You seem to be using the word with regard to people's rights, which is a major difference. I'll not use the word with the broader sense from here on. Secondly, I'm not saying it's ok to discriminate against or even dislike people with uncommon gender/sexual identities which is NOT a belief or decision and cannot have a negative effect on the way one treats others. What I am saying is that if someone holds certain beliefs, we should dislike them. This can apply to (for example) racism, homophobia and apparently for vid, religion. Please keep in mind that I am not equating religion to racism, I am merely using racism as an example as to why we should hold people accountable to their beliefs.

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

You would be very pleasantly surprised. Interestingly enough, being a Christian was undoubtedly not a part of the criteria for being hired. Remember this man has been on the Police force since 1987, has been a part of many divisions within the force. Though I don't know him well enough to say whether or not he could be qualified as a genious, I could hazard a guess that based on his qualifications, he is a fairly smart individual.

We may have differing opinions on what it means to be intelligent. For me intelligence means:
1. Proficient in logic: one of the major principals of logic is the requirement of evidence. Being as this is inconsistent with religious teachings, this generally excludes the religeous. (Although there are exceptions, namely people who have been told all their lives that the evidence is there and just haven't looked for it themselves.)
2. Thinks for themselves: Doesn't go through life believing everything the are told. Investigates things for themselves.
3. Reflects on beliefs: Goes through beliefs to make sure that they all hold up to logic and evidence.

I think you may be thinking of intelligence based on the amount of things one knows. But this is just the regurgitation of information.

I admit that I was (and have still been) too harsh, and for that I apologize. My intent was never to be cruel and I regent any offense i may have caused.

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

Now your post only highlights your own ignorance about Christians and how they live their lives. A big part of being a believer is submitting to God's will and committing to something that you would prefer not to do. Now to those who don't believe in God, I would understand if this in their mind implies lunacy, however this does not fall at all in line with your statement that
"the psychology of religion has shown that your relationship with God is actually a relationship with your own ego (thus God's opinions are always your own)".

This is a very complex issue and I have glossed over most of it but basically: People who believe in God form an idea in their mind of what God's opinions are, then use this idea to develop and reconfirm their opinions. This makes them much less likely to admit they are wrong because it would also be admitting that God is wrong. I understand that you wont be able agree because you believe that the opinions that your mental God are the actual opinions of God.
Now for the idea of submitting to God: If one submits to the opinions they think God has, then they think they are humble. But they only are if God actually exists. If not, then their relationship with God is actually a relationship with their own ego, and they are even less humble.
Now for the idea of doing things you don't want to do for God: So if you disagree with some of the things God wants you to do, then this means that either God want's you to do immoral things OR you don't want to do moral things. If God is Immoral, then why does he deserve your worship? If I believed in an immoral God then I wouldn't worship Him on principle, even on threat of Hell. The other alternative is that you don't want to do moral things. Is this true? I've been told that Christianity teaches that all people are immoral and only the threat of Hell keeps them in line. Based off of the moral people I've met who don't believe in Hell, I can't believe that.

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

So you claim that it is OK to be ignorant of the subject at hand, and yet come up with the answers despite this ignorance. Even an unintelligent man such as myself (What with my contradictory beliefs and all) could see the flaw in that statement.

I do NOT think that it's ok to be ignorant, I just think it's ridiculous to demand that someone know everything about a topic to be even allowed to participate. And I'm sorry if I've offended you about the intelligence thing, I should not have even brought it up, but now that we're on the topic I direct you above to what I consider prerequisites to intelligence.

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

I would gladly accept criticism of my beliefs, as such a thing only opens the door to conversation. What does offend me however, are ignorant and generalized statements that hold no water what so ever. Remember that the majority of the statements on this site have not been against Christianity but against those who believe in it. If you want to delve into the Bible and start playing the "I'll show you the contradiction's, the lies, etc." game then I am very much OK with that, actually I would warn you that I very much would look forward to it.

It just seemed strange that you would bring up 'Freedom of Religion' as no one was even suggesting limiting that freedom. All that people were doing was criticizing and although some were even insulting, no one was suggesting limiting religeous freedom. As for pointing out the contradictions in Christianity, I don't really see the point all I need is: Skepticism is logical therefor faith based religion is illogical

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

Just remember I was an Atheists once, so I know every argument in the book. However if you want to do so (which I doubt you do) then let's do it over PM so not to lead these people to falsely believe that I am trying to convert them.

That's really interesting. I've never met someone who actually went from being an Atheist to being religeous and I would be very interested in discussing this further and I agree we should switch over to PM(I wrote this whole thing before I noticed this part of your post)

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

I don't even know what to say here.

Originally Posted by Bdog

I don't really see anything offside about Clunis' interview and what he said. Just last week, I saw both Obama and Romney talk about praying before making important decisions. I doubt that when the election is over, the winner is going to turn the US into some sort of theocracy (and the same holds true in our case).

As for being socially progressive, I don't know how being a Christian and being socially progressive are mutually exclusive. Heck, Jesus' life and message was probably the most socially progressive at the time (and even now haha): Feed the poor, heal the sick, look after the elderly, etc. etc...

Your right Chris, this part was muddled and unclear. Basically what I'm trying to say here is that I am concerned that the rest of the country will see this and see us as socially backwards because, generally the more religeous a place is, the more socially conservative it is. I understand that this correlation does not necessarily mean causation, but will the rest of the country understand this? Doubt it.

I know quite a few people that would argue that the US is already a theocracy. I wouldn't agree with that, but that is the impression they are giving and I would prefer that we don't start giving that impression. I understand that one prominent government figure promoting religion doesn't make us a theocracy, but they can add up to a big problem.

[armorand93]

...and this is why I dont read the Expresso threads...

[Cam]

Yeah, we should end this before we alienate everyone who reads this thread.

[chrisallard5454]

Originally Posted by Cam

I may not have been clear enough here. First off, we are using the word 'discriminate' in different ways. I am using the word in the broadest sense that include simply not liking someone (the way vid was discriminating). You seem to be using the word with regard to people's rights, which is a major difference. I'll not use the word with the broader sense from here on. Secondly, I'm not saying it's ok to discriminate against or even dislike people with uncommon gender/sexual identities which is NOT a belief or decision and cannot have a negative effect on the way one treats others. What I am saying is that if someone holds certain beliefs, we should dislike them. This can apply to (for example) racism, homophobia and apparently for vid, religion. Please keep in mind that I am not equating religion to racism, I am merely using racism as an example as to why we should hold people accountable to their beliefs.

The italicized line has me extremely confused - which boils down to your entire argument. Why is it that we should judge people to the point of dislike for their beliefs? Especially when we are talking about such a broad spectrum of beliefs. You are creating a new definition for discrimination, in which it is acceptable to dislike a group of people for what they believe. To disagree and dislike are two different things. Essentially what you have done is taken fundamentalism (which you said we should avoid) and applied it so that it suites your atheist mentality.
I agree that we should hold people accountable for their beliefs.
Are you suggesting that our society is too liberal in how we tolerate certain religious beliefs? Because it sounds like you are taking a step backwards if that is indeed the case.

Originally Posted by Cam

We may have differing opinions on what it means to be intelligent. For me intelligence means:
1. Proficient in logic: one of the major principals of logic is the requirement of evidence. Being as this is inconsistent with religious teachings, this generally excludes the religeous. (Although there are exceptions, namely people who have been told all their lives that the evidence is there and just haven't looked for it themselves.)
2. Thinks for themselves: Doesn't go through life believing everything the are told. Investigates things for themselves.
3. Reflects on beliefs: Goes through beliefs to make sure that they all hold up to logic and evidence.

I think you may be thinking of intelligence based on the amount of things one knows. But this is just the regurgitation of information.

You are once again applying a biased definition in which case Devon will be made out to be an unintelligent man. Your spectrum is once again too broad to be applied to the discussion at hand.

1. Remember Cam, that to be an Atheist is to be Religious. To claim there is no God is taking a Religious stance against a higher being. You are thus making a claim that can not be proven, and therefore have no evidence to back your argument. I can then conclude that Atheists are just as unintelligent as Theists. The only individual who can be considered intelligent in this sense is the agnostic, who is unwilling to make a claim about the situation for fear of being wrong about his or her decision.
2. The average citizen in today's world by your definition would be unintelligent in that the majority of our obtained information is passed from individual to individual as a secondary or tertiary source. This includes some of the most accredited professors and scientist alive today.
3. Read back to point one for an answer to this. To put it simply, some of the most intelligent men through the ages (Theist or Atheist) have had hundreds, if not thousands of debates - many of which have been recorded over the last few decades - over the existence of God. You'd think that after several thousand years that if a Scientific finding of which the evidence procured could abolish our silly claims that these debates would subside. My point being their is no evidence to either prove nor disprove a higher being, which I might add is why they call it faith not fact.

Originally Posted by Cam

I admit that I was (and have still been) too harsh, and for that I apologize. My intent was never to be cruel and I regent any offense i may have caused.

No offense caused as of yet, so far this has been a rather mild and enlightening debate.

Originally Posted by Cam

This is a very complex issue and I have glossed over most of it but basically: People who believe in God form an idea in their mind of what God's opinions are, then use this idea to develop and reconfirm their opinions. This makes them much less likely to admit they are wrong because it would also be admitting that God is wrong. I understand that you wont be able agree because you believe that the opinions that your mental God are the actual opinions of God.
Now for the idea of submitting to God: If one submits to the opinions they think God has, then they think they are humble. But they only are if God actually exists. If not, then their relationship with God is actually a relationship with their own ego, and they are even less humble.
Now for the idea of doing things you don't want to do for God: So if you disagree with some of the things God wants you to do, then this means that either God want's you to do immoral things OR you don't want to do moral things. If God is Immoral, then why does he deserve your worship? If I believed in an immoral God then I wouldn't worship Him on principle, even on threat of Hell. The other alternative is that you don't want to do moral things. Is this true? I've been told that Christianity teaches that all people are immoral and only the threat of Hell keeps them in line. Based off of the moral people I've met who don't believe in Hell, I can't believe that.

Your theory is definitely an interesting one. But since it has not been backed up by any evidence I must hereby pronounce it as false

Now for my own claims on the matter;

First off, let me remind you that I was an Atheist, so unlike many believers I have no trouble conceptualizing any of your points including the ones that you have said I wouldn't understand.
You claim that Christians (and for this entire post I have been presenting myself as a Theist for the sake of other Religions out there), or Theists formulate an idea of what God is based around our own bias and perceptions. This statement is probably accurate regarding the believers of the dark ages. Today most beliefs are far more progressive than that. For instance, you would be hard pressed to find a Christian or a Muslim who would attempt to paint a vague picture of God, let alone try and pretend that we understand him.
As believers we don't formulate the image God around ourselves (which is considered Idolatry) but rather formulate ourselves around what we do know of God. My God is the God of the Bible. Everything I know about him is presented in that book. I therefore submit myself to the teachings of that book, rather than to the ideas that swarm around my head.
Now in terms of my immorality. I will freely admit that I am immoral. You are immoral, and the person who represents perfection as close to its perfect form as possible is immoral. I have already stated on this thread what some of my problems are. Including but not limited to,
Addiction to Pornography
Anger Issues
Idolatry
Lack of Commitment
Etc. Etc.

In fact I would say that I have just as many immoral habits as you, if not more. A common misconception regarding Christians is that we don't think that we are perfect in any way. There is only one thing that differentiates a Christian from you. That is that they believe in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour. That is it. Finite. Finished. That is literally the only difference.

Originally Posted by Cam

I do NOT think that it's ok to be ignorant, I just think it's ridiculous to demand that someone know everything about a topic to be even allowed to participate. And I'm sorry if I've offended you about the intelligence thing, I should not have even brought it up, but now that we're on the topic I direct you above to what I consider prerequisites to intelligence.

I understand where you are coming from. In regards to the offence, I wasn't actually offended, I just use sarcasm as a defense mechanism (again one of my problems that I need to work on).
The only problem with your response here is that we aren't discussing the general teachings of Christianity. In fact I would be so bold as to say that -theology aside- even you would agree with 3/4 of the teachings of Christianity.
We are referring to a certain individual who happens to be a Christian. People on this forum have made insults, and produced false claims based on this man being a Christian. Acts such as these should not occur without the people in question having sufficient knowledge of the subject at hand (Devon) to take such bold steps.
Therefore, they should not possess the knowledge found from an entire doctrine of many different denominations or even Theologies, but rather understand what scenario Devon is presenting himself from. In which case they should know all about Kilcona Park Alliance Church, its doctrine, statement of faith, the congregation within it, his family, etc.
So far the only two people who have shown such sufficient knowledge of Devon are myself and H0twired. Seeing as how I am of a biased opinion I shall retract myself from any comments regarding Devon, and assume that only H0twired is capable of providing anything that is reputable to be heard. In this instance, Devon sounds like a good man for the top job.

Originally Posted by Cam

It just seemed strange that you would bring up 'Freedom of Religion' as no one was even suggesting limiting that freedom. All that people were doing was criticizing and although some were even insulting, no one was suggesting limiting religeous freedom. As for pointing out the contradictions in Christianity, I don't really see the point all I need is: Skepticism is logical therefor faith based religion is illogical

Many people have suggested that their trust in Devon has been shaken upon finding out his beliefs. That fact has been stated over and over. A few have gone as far as saying that he should no longer be Police Chief for broadcasting his beliefs to the public (yourself included).
My response is that these people have expressed a fundamental ideology that starkly contrasts religion intolerance, which ironically, is the exact thing that they oppose about Christians. Who would have thought, Atheists can be Fundamentalists?

Originally Posted by Cam

That's really interesting. I've never met someone who actually went from being an Atheist to being religeous and I would be very interested in discussing this further and I agree we should switch over to PM(I wrote this whole thing before I noticed this part of your post)

I am free for tea anytime. I don't like to push my beliefs on people, but I would be open to discussing how my beliefs came to be.

Originally Posted by Cam

Your right Chris, this part was muddled and unclear. Basically what I'm trying to say here is that I am concerned that the rest of the country will see this and see us as socially backwards because, generally the more religeous a place is, the more socially conservative it is. I understand that this correlation does not necessarily mean causation, but will the rest of the country understand this? Doubt it.

I know quite a few people that would argue that the US is already a theocracy. I wouldn't agree with that, but that is the impression they are giving and I would prefer that we don't start giving that impression. I understand that one prominent government figure promoting religion doesn't make us a theocracy, but they can add up to a big problem.

I for one do not mix Religion and Politics. That is very dangerous. I very much believe in the separation of Church and State. So when people equate fundamentalist Republicans with Christians I roll my eyes. I already informed you -as well as many others in the past- what it takes to be a Christian. Political ideology is not part of the criteria. If people align Religion with a certain party, or political agenda then that only highlights their ignorance of today's Religions.

[armorand93]

Congrats, this thread is now about as ridiculously insane as this:

• Video Link

[rypinion]

Looks like the Free Press will have an article about everyone's favourite topic tomorrow:

https://twitter.com/PaulSamyn/status/260802394294730754

Originally Posted by @PaulSamyn

Tomorrow's @WinnipegNews : New police chief to fight crime with prayer, Sam Katz in Ottawa on P3s, use your noodle to mark World Pasta Day

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by vid

I didn't "choose" to be atheist though.

Everyone is born an atheist. Most are indoctrinated into a faith at a young age but some enter the superstition in adulthood, usually due to some trauma in their lives. Luckily, this is happening less and less as society becomes more educated and aware.

"Atheism is a religion" is one of the silliest statements ever spoken. Atheism is a religion just like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

That said, we now have proof the new cheif of police is nuts. Hopefully he will be let go soon.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/bre...175418181.html

[Riverman]

Oh yeah - Hi Skyler!!

[h0twired]

Originally Posted by Riverman

"Atheism is a religion" is one of the silliest statements ever spoken. Atheism is a religion just like not collecting stamps is a hobby.[/url]

Then why are their atheists that have meetings, write books, speak at conferences, argue with other atheists and act more arrogantly than the most conservative southern Baptist?

Atheism is probably one of the most annoying religions out there these days.

[Riverman]

I'm in a high-performance boating club. We meet, discuss and many articles are written. Is high-performance boating a religion?

A theist. Meaning non- theist.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by Riverman

I'm in a high-performance boating club. We meet, discuss and many articles are written. Is high-performance boating a religion?

A theist. Meaning non- theist.

Holy crap, Riverman is back!

Bringing religion into anything outside the church or your home is crap, Clunis should have known better, this isn't 1950 nor are we living in Tulsa, Oklahoma or some other bible belt crap hole.

[vid]

Originally Posted by h0twired

Then why are their atheists that have meetings, write books, speak at conferences, argue with other atheists and act more arrogantly than the most conservative southern Baptist?

Atheism is probably one of the most annoying religions out there these days.

I was unaware that having meetings, writing books, speaking at conferences, and arguing with peers and acting more arrogant than other groups, was the definition of religion!

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Holy crap, Riverman is back!

I missed you too Skyler!

And talk about holy crap, vid and I have something in common.

[vid]

I am as surprised as you.