quote:Originally posted by King of Men: [Edit] Removed response to snark.
The privilege is that the national government, with all its power, recognises 'having faith' as the default state, the one on which no comment is needed, and then provides infrastructure to support that state. It is a very powerful affirmation of craziness. It says that those who do not pray are outsiders, not full citizens.
"Infrastructure" to me means a tangible thing that enables or facilitates an action or activity. Under that definition, I don't see how National Day of Prayer enables or facilitates prayer; any more than Dental Hygiene day facilitates tooth brushing.
Mucus made a good point-- the law clearly seems to flaunt the establishment clause (at least from one POV), in that it requires the president to make a declaration about a religious activity.
You might take a lesson from him-- he's a lot more convincing than your apparent persecution complex.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus explains why it violates the law. I'm trying to explain why the law is a good thing. It was inserted into the constitution precisely because of the 'persecution complex' of various theists and deists; they were worried that a state church, even if it didn't explicitly persecute them, would make them outsiders in the nation they were creating. I don't usually use "the Founders thought" as an argument, but in this case I agree with them. If that's paranoia, hand me the tinfoil.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Technically, the judge explained why law was violated and/or why it is a good thing. I just pointed out what she wrote. (And technically much of what she wrote was quoted too)
I just happen to agree)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've always said that if you have to coerce people into holding your belief system, or if it's much easier to get them young and bring them up in it, the "Truth" of it must be pretty thin.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It always irks me when this happens, but I agree with KofM. Proclaiming a day of prayer seems to overstep the govt's boundaries. In general, I do want a secular government and the day of prayer is not secular. However, I think that if a national tragedy were to occur and the president said people should prayer or whatever to seek solace, I would not object. I guess the difference between including prayer and religion in a speech versus a presidential statement. Also, I would love to see a modern president refuse to do the thanksgiving proclamation.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
He convinced me that there's a POV that can make a reasonable argument that the National Day of Prayer, as endorsed by the government, is unconstitutional.
But I've always kind of been opposed to prayer in secular places.
I don't believe you've shown how the National Day of Prayer privileges people above others; did you want to pursue that conversation?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The government says "This day should be devoted to this religious activity", and you don't see how that is privilege for the theists who practice that activity, over those who don't? Seriously?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking only for myself, the National Day of Prayer alone isn't really a big deal. I don't really like it though, and I wish governments weren't spending time on it. Perhaps you might feel similarly about a National Stop Being So Superstitious Day. Or perhaps not.
That said, I DO think that the Day of Prayer privileges a theistic viewpoint over others, in a small way.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: The government says "This day should be devoted to this religious activity", and you don't see how that is privilege for the theists who practice that activity, over those who don't? Seriously?
Probably not in the same way that you do; which is why I asked. I see, theoretically, that there may be a point about a declaration excluding otherwise law-abiding members of a society from...something.
But I don't think social integration or acceptance is necessarily guaranteed by the Constitution. RIGHTS are; acceptance isn't. I keep coming back to this: in what tangible ways are non-participants harmed by the National Day of Prayer as practiced modernly?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's worth noting again that the legal ruling, while focusing on the legality of the law, does have a list (pages 57 to 59) of events where non-Christians were excluded from National Day of Prayer events.
At issue appears to be a very unclear line of separation between the National Day of Prayer Task Force (which is supposed to be private) and politicians that endorse it.
Some parts of interest since the surrounding parts are long
quote:In Plano, Texas, a multicultural group and a group of Christians held “dueling prayer services” on the National Day of Prayer after fighting over the right to hold their events at the city council building and threatening to file a lawsuit. Theodore Kim, “After threat of suit, city steps aside in prayer,” Dallas Morning News, May 2, 2008, at 16B;
quote:In Richmond, Virginia, a Jewish organization criticized a National Day of Prayer event attended by various state officials at the state capitol because the event’s sponsor excluded non-Christians. Robin Farmer, “Diverse gathering marks day of prayer: Christian-oriented event leaves some feeling excluded,” Richmond Times Dispatch, May 2, 2008, at B1;
quote:In Victorville, California, local residents complained that "Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and Sikhs are being excluded” from the National Day of Prayer event at the town hall. The organizer responded, “this entire nation was founded on Christian faith. The reason we are a great county is because we're Christian. In the Muslim countries, you can get shot if you're Christian." Brooke Edwards, “Faiths clash over Day of Prayer,” Daily Press, April 27, 2008;
quote:In Salt Lake City, Utah, Mormons were excluded from National Day of Prayer of events because they are not “in accordance with the evangelical principles [of] the task force,” including a belief in the “Holy Trinity” and that the Bible is the “only written word of God.” Travis Reed, Associated Press, May 4, 2004;
quote:These incidents suggest that James Madison’s prediction seems to have come true: in many instances, the National Day of Prayer has “narrow[ed] the recommendation [to pray] to the standard of the predominant sect.” It is true that much of the controversy has been generated by events of private organizations such as the National Day of Prayer Task Force. However, government officials, including former Presidents, have sometimes aligned themselves so closely with those exclusionary groups that it becomes difficult to tell the difference between the government’s message and that of the private group. ... If the National Day of Prayer was not a public observance, members of minority religious groups or secular groups would have less reason to be concerned about being excluded from events celebrating the day.
Of particular interest, note that in the last paragraph, thats a reference to James Madison's argument about refusing Thanksgiving Proclamations that I quoted on the previous page.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Again, inclusion in American society is not a constitutional guarantee.
The only ones that worry me of the above are the ones where an event was sponsored by local government. Not just where local/state government officials attended, mind you, but where public monies were used to push an agenda of religious intolerance.
I am not worried a bit by Evangelicals excluding Mormons in Utah. It kind of makes me laugh, honestly.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Can you justify this statement? Smells like hyperbole from here...
I'm simply trying to demonstrate for you what it might feel like from a Christian perspective, compared to how a National Day of Prayer feels to an atheist.
I don't want the government explicitly supporting a religion other than my own, and I suspect that you don't either.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Again, inclusion in American society is not a constitutional guarantee.
Pardon, but that's exactly what both we and the judge are telling you: When it comes to religion, it is. The government is not permitted to declare any religion official, and that includes religion in general.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Again, inclusion in American society is not a constitutional guarantee.
Or to elaborate, this was one of the more confusing parts of the ruling. But, while inclusion might not be a constitutional guarantee, the government might still be bound to not endorse things that might prove divisive. There is a slight difference.
IANAL, but the way I read it, it seems that part of the reason why that list of incidents was brought up is that it appears on pages 54 through 57, that a Judge Breyer ruled two different ways when considering whether it was constitutional to display the Ten Commandments in two different cases, one at a Texas state capitol (constitutional), Kentucky court houses (not constitutional). Breyer was the swing vote.
It seemed to me that Breyer based this on the fact that the former had been undivisive for decades and that the latter has proved divisive much sooner.
quote:(“Justice Breyer claimed to rely on abstract ‘legal judgment’ rather than the Court's traditional tests, but he essentially applied the traditional endorsement test.”). He considered the purpose of the display and the effect it had, concluding that “the monument conveys a predominantly secular message.” ... The only new factor that Justice Breyer incorporated into his analysis was that the display did not have a “divisive” history before the lawsuit was filed. Id. at 704. To the extent this is a relevant factor in this case, it does not seem to favor defendants.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Can you justify this statement? Smells like hyperbole from here...
I'm simply trying to demonstrate for you what it might feel like from a Christian perspective, compared to how a National Day of Prayer feels to an atheist.
Okay. So you feel irrationally paranoid.
I'm not sure what other conclusion I'm supposed to come to given that statement, MC.
quote: I don't want the government explicitly supporting a religion other than my own, and I suspect that you don't either.
I don't want the government explicitly supporting any religion, especially my own. I inherently distrust Mormon politicians in a way that I do not mistrust, say, Catholic ones.
Mucus:
quote:the government might still be bound to not endorse things that might prove divisive.
I'm not convinced. The...um...jury is still out on that one.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Yes. That's what I said. "None so blind", eh?
As you show every time you post on this topic.
No kidding. It's sad that he has to keep pointing it out over and over.
Like a neurotic Lab chasing the same tattered tennis ball 24 hours a day. No one else sees value in the ball, but the Lab keeps going after it over and over, dropping at people's feet.
It's fairly well know that the Framers didn't want a State religion. That's what the anti-establishment law prevents. They had a justified fear of persecution, and wanted to enshrine the idea of religion being a personal choice not to be chosen FOR people, but by people, for themselves, as they saw fit.
I've yet to see anything that ever remotely suggests that they wanted all forms of religion barred from public discourse.
You are free to not participate in prayer, or religion. But that doesn't mean that people in public life have to give up THEIR beliefs. It doesn't mean that having a day of prayer that is intended to be non-denominational infringes on your right to not pray.
But by all means keep fetching the ball. I'm sure someone will throw it for you again.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's fairly well know that the Framers didn't want a State religion. That's what the anti-establishment law prevents.
If you read a bit of the discourse surrounding the passing of the Constitution, you'll see it was put in place to prevent a good deal more than that. And, just as with free speech, our understanding of what the Constitution means in a modern context is continuously evolving, separate from the exact intents at the time of its passage.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:the government might still be bound to not endorse things that might prove divisive.
I'm not convinced. The...um...jury is still out on that one.
It seems clear to me. Let's reword it, in that section the logic is.
If (purely religious) {unconsitutional} else { // if as in the ten commandment cases, people // obstensibly claim a secular function Breyer might apply the "divisiveness" test to see if the event/object at hand is religious or not }
If you acknowledge (and I could be wrong) that the National Prayer Day has no secular purpose, then we actually hit the first clause, not the Breyer logic.
quote:Because I have concluded that the National Day of Prayer does not serve a secular purpose, Justice Breyer’s concurrence does not suggest a different result in this case.
I was just bringing that part up to discuss what tangible harms might come up, not because I think it is directly relevant to the main logic of the ruling.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu, I have read a bit of it, although perhaps not as much as lawyers do.
I know our definition of rights evolves, as it has to for a modern world. However, that is what I am disagreeing with....some people's modern interpretation, which they claim is what was the original intent....and that that intent is clear as day.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, you're being really constructive in this thread, Kwea. Speaking of always doing the same old things.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's a simple issue, really, and religious people should be as concerned about it as atheists. Government sponsorship of religion is a bad thing for everyone, not just the losers.
What is the downside to the government endorsing/celebrating religion in general, given that the government doesn't favor any specific religion and that the government doesn't force or pressure anyone to practice religion or believe in a religion? Why would that, given those limitations, be a bad thing for everyone?
Firstly, because religion in general is a bad thing. Secondly, because bad or not, the Constitution gives atheists protection from this sort of thing.
Well, the first point isn't convincing because I believe religion is good.
And the second point is circular. You can't say the Constitution should be interpreted to give us a specific right because it does give us that right. America could always amend the Constitution to change that, if there's no good reason for it other than that it's been interpreted that way in the past.
And the government would still not be allowed to establish a specific national religion - so you can't compare it to making Islam the state religion. The National Magic Day is a better comparison, and I don't really see a real danger in that, even if I lived in a country where the majority of people believe in and tried to practice magic.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You can't say the Constitution should be interpreted to give us a specific right because it does give us that right. America could always amend the Constitution to change that, if there's no good reason for it other than that it's been interpreted that way in the past.
If America amends the constitution, then America amends the constitution. Until then, the constitution says that the government shall pass no law that establishes religion. I think it is perfectly sensible to argue that that be interpreted to mean what it actually says.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not really. But if you'd prefer something that's harmful, the National Animal Sacrifice Day is just as applicable, and I do think that's harmful. If the majority felt animal sacrifice is a thing that needs to be celebrated with an official day, I don't see how that in any way poses a threat to my religious freedom - presuming it is celebrating animal sacrifice as a religious practice across all religions and not just advocating one.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Wow, you're being really constructive in this thread, Kwea. Speaking of always doing the same old things.
As constructive as you making the same false, ignorant, intolerant statements bashing other people's beliefs? It hasn't stopped you, or even slowed you down.
You've done more to drive people away from this site and make it a harsh, nasty place than any 4 trolls, KoM, but here we are, aren't we? You are here, and most of what made Hatrack great left rather than deal with you and people like you.
Obviously being constructive is not really a concern for you.
Hatrack is still a GOOD place to come, but that is despite you rather than because of you.
quote:As constructive as you making the same false, ignorant, intolerant statements bashing other people's beliefs? It hasn't stopped you, or even slowed you down.
I do believe that's the nicest thing you've ever said to me.
quote:Obviously being constructive is not really a concern for you.
Being popular or tactful is not; but that is not the same thing. I understand that you do not like my style of argument; however, I do give actual arguments, not mere name-calling and repetitive accusations of, um, repetitiveness. As for ignorance, you have attempted to enlighten me and I have disagreed with your assertions; if I make the same arguments which you feel are false to fact, it is not because I am ignorant but because I found your version unconvincing.
You also have rather a curious understanding of 'tolerance'; if argument on a discussion forum is intolerant, then I'll just have to wear that shoe. But until you actually see my storm troopers making random theists scrub the streets, you have seen no intolerance. Tolerance does not mean agreement, it does not even mean respect; it means agreeing to live in the same society without violence.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To you, perhaps. I don;t agree with a lot of people, KoM, but I am tolerant of the fact that their views are different than mine...yet I do not reference violence in my definition of tolerance.
I don't expect to turn you into a theist. LOL I wouldn't even try to. It's not even a possibility for you because of your beginning assumptions. I understand that. Hell, I can even see where you are coming from sometimes. I have a checkered past with regards to religion myself. My beliefs about it have changed over the years, that's for sure.
But you are so rigid in your beliefs, so intolerant of others beliefs and values, that you constantly belittle and insult them, and their beliefs on a regular basis. And you actually expect people to accept that, because you claim to have some sort of special understanding of the world that other people don't.
You are the flip side of the religious extremists your hate, and you can't see that. You have your own beliefs, but not everyone agrees whit you....yet you seem to feel it is ok to dismiss their thoughts, feelings and beliefs and mock them, simply because they differ from your own beliefs.
Hell, even when I agree with you I am usually left with a bad taste in my mouth. I imagine if we met IRL we'd probably get along, believe it or not, because I have a lot of friends who don't see eye to eye with me on a lot of issues. I LIKE argument.
So I like good arguments, and I am hardly an ultra religious person, yet even I find your "discussion style" counter-productive.
Even if you don't like me (which is fine), the fact that I still dislike agreeing with you even when our views are similar should tell you how effective your arguments are in fact. (not very)
I am sorry I blew up at your in the post above, but after literally years of listening to your rants are religion, and religious people, it was just too much to take right now. I won't edit it, because I don't believe in deleting unless completely necessary, but I am sorry.
Other than in discussions on this topic, you usually seem like a decent guy. I am sorry I didn't treat you like one.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To call people who literally cannot tell right from wrong 'crazy' is accurate use of language: That's what insanity means. If their feelings are hurt, that can't be helped, any more than I can help hurting people's feelings if I correct their physics. Further, it is necessary to counteract the prevailing assumption that religion is the default and natural state of mankind. Accurate language can help, in somewhat the same vein that early feminists found it useful to coin words like 'herstory' and 'chairperson'.
quote:But you are so rigid in your beliefs, so intolerant of others beliefs and values, that you constantly belittle and insult them, and their beliefs on a regular basis.
Well, there you go again with the mislabeled intolerance. Again, insult and lack of respect do not result from not tolerating someone, but from not accepting them. As for rigidity of belief, you perhaps intend that as criticism; but the purpose of an open mind, like an open mouth, is to close it upon something solid. Alas, most people chew nothing but mud.
quote:yet I do not reference violence in my definition of tolerance.
Then you are mistaken.
quote:Even if you don't like me (which is fine), the fact that I still dislike agreeing with you even when our views are similar should tell you how effective your arguments are in fact. (not very)
This assumes that you are typical, which may not be so. But even if you were, I'm not the only atheist out there; it's valuable to have a wide spectrum - a marketplace, to coin a phrase - of argumentative styles, so as to have a key to fit every lock, as it were. It is not as though Tom has converted you, either; so it does not seem to be the style which is the barrier, but rather your own obtuseness.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If their feelings are hurt, that can't be helped...
Well, yes it can, actually. It is done all the time. Furthermore you know it can be helped, as you've seen it done in this community, sometimes inspired by one of your more dramatic cases of soapbox-hopping.
It can be helped, or at least attempt to be helped. You just don't care to do so. I still don't understand why you aren't willing to simply admit it instead of pretending it's impossible, when the truth is you're not really convincing anyone.
quote:...it's valuable to have a wide spectrum - a marketplace, to coin a phrase - of argumentative styles, so as to have a key to fit every lock, as it were.
This is as close as I think you've come to stating what has been clear for awhile: you're not actually attempting to persuade people when you insult them (sorry, 'don't accept them'), but instead are working towards some other goal. That's a step forward, I suppose. Maybe in a few years if you're asked the question again, you'll actually answer it honestly?
quote:To call people who literally cannot tell right from wrong 'crazy' is accurate use of language: That's what insanity means.
In what is almost certain to be wasted time: how do you know they cannot tell right from wrong? I'm not talking about all religious people everywhere as a group. I'm asking how you can point to one religious person and say, "You're crazy, and you're wrong, and that unprovable thing you believe in doesn't actually exist."? Because you do that too, of course.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That you for proving me right on every point. I didn't expect it to happen all in one post, but I probably should have.
All I did was allow you to prove your own ignorance and prejudice. That you for making it so easy.
Life isn't physics. The fact that you seem to think it is makes me pity you, and even more so your family. Thank God (irony intended) I don't have to live in "your world". I am glad that your version of "right and wrong" isn't mine. I'm a better person for it.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now when you say that, MightyCow...you were having fun, right? Because as you said elsewhere, righteous indignation is fun.
That said, where exactly is the irony in my post? If it's so thick, you ought to be able to point to an example right away, correct?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
As a matter of fact, life is physics. And to head you off at the pass, it is nonetheless full of mystery, passion, and interest. That you need, apparently, to invent spirits and ghosts in your own image if life is to have meaning for you makes me - I choose my words with a non-unpleasant sense of irony - pity you.
quote:All I did was allow you to prove your own ignorance and prejudice.
If I am ignorant, you have done nothing to alleviate the condition; remind me again which one of us has the ethical system enjoining him to love his enemies? You mistake disagreement for ignorance. And I make no pre-judgements; I judge your inability to tell right and wrong apart only after you have demonstrated the fact. If you dislike the judgement, that is your privilege; but to say it was made before we spoke is a plain falsehood.
quote:This is as close as I think you've come to stating what has been clear for awhile: you're not actually attempting to persuade people when you insult them (sorry, 'don't accept them'), but instead are working towards some other goal.
I do not think that is what I said. My intention was to state that I argue for the benefit of those not reachable by sweet respectfulness; that angle is well covered by other atheists here. It may be that I stated this badly, but I do not see how you extracted a confession of a sinister "other goal".
quote:In what is almost certain to be wasted time: how do you know they cannot tell right from wrong?
I ask what their evidence was for a certain assertion, and they respond that it's not about evidence, it's about faith. Here is evil, staring you in the face and grinning. I state this, not in an attempt to be funny or ironic, but as simple truth.
To be fair about it, not every theist is of this stripe; Lisa, Armoth, and BlackBlade, for example, all accept the primacy of evidence even though their conclusions are shaded by emotion, indoctrination, and wishful thinking. And to extend the fairness further, I do not know into which camp Kwea falls; it is not clear that he, personally, is nuts. But most theists, I find, can give no coherent account of the evidence for their belief, and furthermore become angry at the suggestion that they should. The former may be excused as mere ignorance; I am myself ignorant of the detailed evidence for many things I believe. But in the latter, madness lies.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do not think that is what I said. My intention was to state that I argue for the benefit of those not reachable by sweet respectfulness; that angle is well covered by other atheists here.
Well, 'sweet respectfulness' is one way I suppose to describe what you're not doing. That said, who do you think you have reached by your, I don't know, bitter disrespectfulness approach? The angle you're covering isn't covered by other atheists because it doesn't work. But maybe that windmill did you wrong somehow...
quote:I ask what their evidence was for a certain assertion, and they respond that it's not about evidence, it's about faith. Here is evil, staring you in the face and grinning. I state this, not in an attempt to be funny or ironic, but as simple truth.
So, because someone does not have a good reason for believing something, that particular belief must be wrong? That doesn't follow, and it's hardly evil. What a silly word to use for someone rejecting faith as a basis for reaching decisions!
It appears the answer to my question is, "I don't." Killing people is no less wrong if I believe it's wrong because people ought only be beaten nearly to death. All you know is that their process is wrong, but you don't stop there, do you? You say, "Nobody can possibly have reached a correct answer through an incorrect process. I know it, and they're stupid and evil for thinking otherwise."
quote:...furthermore become angry at the suggestion that they should.
You can tell yourself this as often as you like, shout it to the world, in fact, but that won't make it one iota more true than it is now. And it's not true now. If you think most people get angry at you for suggesting they give a 'coherent account etc. etc.', well, you're just not paying attention. Or you're assuming you can read their minds and understand them better than they understand themselves, which would be an interesting claim for you to make, having such a keen understanding of madness that is.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, because someone does not have a good reason for believing something, that particular belief must be wrong? That doesn't follow, and it's hardly evil. What a silly word to use for someone rejecting faith as a basis for reaching decisions!
It appears the answer to my question is, "I don't." Killing people is no less wrong if I believe it's wrong because people ought only be beaten nearly to death. All you know is that their process is wrong, but you don't stop there, do you? You say, "Nobody can possibly have reached a correct answer through an incorrect process. I know it, and they're stupid and evil for thinking otherwise."
I can form no link between what you are posting and what I posted; it follows that at least one of us is completely mis-reading the other. In case I'm the one being mis-read, let me try to restate my thesis in different terms: To reach a wrong conclusion from evidence is not evil, but only misguided. But to reject evidence as a means for reaching conclusions is evil. It is, if you like, an epistemological form of evil; it is the rejection of all that make humanity more than an ape. To reject evidence and reason is to reduce yourself to the level of a child or animal, or to willingly take drugs that will damage your brain. To borrow from within the Christian faith, it is a sin akin to suicide: The horror that a Christian might feel at seeing someone throw away the gift of life, I experience when someone tells me that it's "not about evidence".
You also appear to object to my using the word 'evil' and simultaneously denigrating faith as a route to truth. Why is that? Do you think that only theists can believe there is evil in the world?
quote:You can tell yourself this as often as you like, shout it to the world, in fact, but that won't make it one iota more true than it is now.
If you wish to directly contradict my experience, that's up to you; there is no possible response to the man who is willing to merely call you a liar. What I have said is based on my experience with Christians; perhaps you have interacted with a different set, and so formed a different conclusion.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
