Why I am an atheist

[cleanhippie]

I am an atheist, in short, because I am a rationalist and a scientist. I am an atheist because of reason – because of a simple love of the power of reasoning and rational thinking to bring real clarity, resolution and a grasp of the closest thing you really will get to get to real ‘truth’ while living out your lives on this pale blue dot. I don’t believe in gods for much the same reason that I don’t believe in fairies, bogeymen, ghosts, lucky gems, leprechauns, Santa or the Easter Bunny. There isn’t a shred of convincing evidence for the existence of any of them, plenty of evidence that they are grossly surplus to requirements for explaining any phenomenon, and that proposing them just creates more problems than it solves.

--snip--

Indeed, the whole concept of ‘god’ or ‘gods’ is so ill-defined that asking me if I believe in ‘god’ is like asking me if I believe in floogamaloops. I don’t know what floogamaloops are, and neither do you. I don’t know what exactly gods would be like, and neither do you. Or rather, everybody has their own personal idea of what ‘god’ is – varying vastly from person to person, region to region and time to time. To some, god is simply energy, and you can find it in a lump of coal – which is at any rate an interesting insight into the power of wishful thinking, and the tragic lengths some people will go to to cling desperately and shamelessly to this strange ‘god’ notion.


Do you believe immunoglobulin M exists? I do. And I can tell you what it is – and it will be roughly the same definition that any person who knows about the subject will give you. And I could hand you to someone more competent than myself who could give you the robust evidence for the existence of immunoglobulin M, and take you through graceful laboratory techniques that isolate the molecule and allow us to say things about its size, structure and function. The great thing about it actually existing, and having a testable definition, is that it will pass through the fire of reason, and you don’t have to take it on faith. Of course it also helps that IgM is a mere molecule that lacks the capacity to be a passive-aggressive bastard that wants to hide its existence from you, reveal itself occasionally through arbitrary phenomena such as weeping statues and faces in toast, and otherwise must insist on being taken purely on faith – which are common themes on the subject of gods – but let’s not complicate things further.

--snip--

There are of course “other ways of knowing” – it’s just they’re complete bollocks. Beyond laughable in the shadow of empirical science. ‘Intuition’, ‘gut feeling’ and ‘just knowing’ are alternative ways of knowing things, in much the same way that having sex standing up is an alternative form of contraception. Find me a person who could uncover the structure of the atom, of light, of the complexity of life through “other ways of knowing”. It’s exasperating, ridiculous and sad that adult humans can even utter those kinds of opinions with a straight face. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry – and I don’t care if they’re offended by that. They should be. They don’t deserve to be cushioned from having their beliefs poked and prodded – and frankly, they really don’t know what they’re missing by not learning to love sceptical interrogation, the thrill of the culmination of arriving at a real, intellectually satisfying conclusion, instead of evading awkward questions, putting their fingers in their ears and playing the faith card to shield their cherished beliefs.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/10/09/why-i-am-an-atheist/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

[Logical]

1. Good post!h

[MADem]

2. Funny how some atheists are as insistent as people who hawk their religions!

It's like atheism is a religion of sorts.

I'm in the "Live and let live" crowd.

They should probably rename this forum "Religion/Theology/Atheism"--for purposes of accuracy.

[MineralMan]

4. Why is that funny? I have a friend who is a fresh-water biologist.

Anytime I talk to him, he keeps going back to that subject. He's sort of a one-note song. It's what he loves. As it happens, I like that subject, too, so I get lots of chances to learn new things from him, and sometimes tell him about something I've observed while angling. We have great conversations. However, like atheists, he is not telling me that I should be a freshwater biologist. Neither is the person who wrote this essay telling you to become an atheist. Not all essays are written to convince others to join the writer in beliefs or disbeliefs. If you're not interested in an essay about someone's reasons to be an atheist, you needn't read it. There's no evangelism in this essay, just an explanation.

Atheism interests some people. Religion interests others. Why should atheists not speak of their interests?

I've never understood the argument you're making.

[MADem]

6. Funny, curious, odd. Most people are not one-noters.

Don't be so touchy, and take it so personally, just because I make an observation. I am not directing an affront at you, but you certainly seem to be taking it that way.

If you are secure in your beliefs, then you should be confident in your choices, n'est pas?

I never said that atheism was uninteresting, or that atheists should not speak of their interests--so please don't characterize my comments in that inaccurate fashion. I simply made a comment based on observation--you know, that scientific method thing?

Go on back and read what I actually wrote, without your very own patina of "opposition" painted over it.

[MineralMan]

8. I will do that, just as soon as you show me in that essay where

the author is proselytizing in any way, or "hawking" or insisting anything at all. My post was not directed at you, and I didn't take it personally. It's just an observation.

I'm quite secure in my disbelief, thanks.

[MADem]

13. You're taking this entirely too personally.

The very title is a "Declaration of (Anti-) Faith," modeled on similar essays and published tomes (Why I am a Christian/Catholic/Jew, etc.).

Examples (just the very tip of the iceberg, mind you, too), so you know I am not talking out my ass:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Am-Christian-Leading-Thinkers/dp/080106712X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1318179960&sr=1-2
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Am-Christian-John-Stott/dp/1596442646/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1318179960&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Presbyterian-Park-Hays-Miller/dp/1406776122/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1318179777&sr=1-9
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Am-Catholic-Garry-Wills/dp/0618380485/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1318179726&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Am-Jew-Edmond-Fleg/dp/1406776114/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1318179777&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Jew-David-Sola-Pool/dp/B000GWEIZU/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1318179777&sr=1-2
http://www.amazon.com/Why-I-am-Still-Christian/dp/0826476988/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1318179960&sr=1-3
http://www.amazon.com/Why-I-Am-Christian-Scientist/dp/B000FMIRZS/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1318179960&sr=1-7
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Muslim-Asma-Gull-Hasan/dp/0007175345/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1318180104&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Why-I-Am-United-Methodist/dp/0687453569/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1318180167&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Am-Lutheran-Jesus-Center/dp/0758605145/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1318180209&sr=1-1

I simply pointed that out. When one models a declaration after a time-honored model used by religious tracts for the past century or more, the assumption quite naturally follows that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

I would have thought the evocative (provocative?) nature of the essay's title would be quite "obvious" to anyone frequenting a RELIGION forum.

I also simply pointed out that this forum, which is a "belief" forum, is missing a category, unless "Atheism" is, in fact, a religion--a belief system of "unbelief," if you will.

[MineralMan]

17. Uff da! Never mind...nt

[cleanhippie]

40. Funny how its not that sort at all.

[MADem]

49. Well, that's your POV.

If it's not a religion of sorts, why post about it in a religious forum?

It has all the hallmarks of religion, the ardor, zeal, commitment, attitude, beliefs, principles, and in some cases proselytizing, it simply lacks a deity.

It only exists (the term atheist needs the word 'theist' to exist) in opposition to religions that worship a deity.

I don't pretend to have any answers, but I do think, like the "Hockey is a religion in Canada" example below, that "Atheism is a religon to some atheists." Otherwise, they wouldn't spend so much time arguing with theists about their perspective on the subject.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

re·li·gion
noun \ri-ˈli-jən\
Definition of RELIGION

1 a: the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3 archaic: scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Examples of RELIGION

Many people turn to religion for comfort in a time of crisis.
There are many religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism.
Shinto is a religion that is unique to Japan.
Hockey is a religion in Canada.
Politics are a religion to him.
Where I live, high school football is religion.
Food is religion in this house.

[darkstar3]

50. And that's YOUR point of view.

Of course, atheism doesn't have any beliefs or principles. It doesn't have any dogmas or holy texts. It doesn't have schools to generate leaders. It doesn't require anything from the people who self-identify as atheists. It has no articles of faith or commandments that must be followed.

I could go on, but frankly, I don't need to. There are many ways to say this, so I'll try a different one: If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is sexual activity.

[MADem]

51. I know. I realize this is all opinion and perspective. No one can really prove anything.

Atheism has the belief (or view, if you don't like the B word) that there is no deity. It also has as an article of faith that there is no deity, and in order to be an atheist, one has to aver that a deity does not exist. If one can't do that, one can't call oneself an atheist.

Many religions don't have dogmas or holy texts or schools or leaders--the Native Peoples in many countries have a "religion" that encompasses the worship of nature, represented by deities that are animals or natural phenomena (wind, rain, e.g.), but they don't attend services or necessarily have priests or leaders that tell them what to believe. Some do, but with others, it's more a community-based and parent-to-child thing.

Abstinence, actually, IS sexual activity of a sort, if defined in relation to CONTRACEPTION. People who practice abstinence are sexually active in many cases--they just aren't getting busy WITH anyone. You can't have sexual abstinence without sexual activity, after all--one plays off the other. The old Yin Yan of the universe!

http://contraception.about.com/od/abstinence/g/Abstinence.htm

[darkstar3]

52. False.

You don't understand the difference between actively believing that there are no gods, and simply lacking belief in any gods. Don't worry, you're not the first. In fact, I don't even blame you, but rather the culture in which we live. It ensconces in people the idea that we must believe in either A or explicitly not A, ignoring the possibility of B-Z entirely.

And by the way, your statement on abstinence is only true if you redefine sexual activity. When a doctor asks you if you are sexually active, he/she is not asking if you masturbate. The doctor is asking if you have engaged in sexual contact with another person. And this serves as an example of what's happening in order for you to claim that atheism is a religion: If you're willing to redefine a particular word (atheist) or phrase (sexual activity) to fit your own rhetorical needs, you do nothing but make debate impossible.

And BTW: Why, in light of #48, are you spending so much time and effort trying to CONVINCE me and others that atheism is a religion?

[MADem]

53. I don't really see how my declaration can possibly be false.

"I don't know" is pretty clear-cut to me. It ain't false, either. I don't know if there are gods or no gods, I don't necessarily have or lack belief in gods, actively, passively, or somewhere in-between.

I sit firmly upon the "I don't know" chair, and here I will stay. I listen to all sides with interest, but I commit to no decisive POV. Why? Because I just do not know. It doesn't bother me to live with this uncertain state of mind.

I provided a link re: the sexual abstinence comment. Look at it. It is a definition within a widely used context, not a redefined context.

Just as you can't "define" A-theism without its opposite, Theism, you can't define sexual abstinence--at least in the context of contraception, which is where the term is widely used in public discourse, by those who oppose youthful sexual congress--without sexual activity. Quite frankly, when I think "sexual abstinence" I don't think of doctors, I think of the contraception angle. And the opposite of sexual abstinence, in this context, is sexual activity.

That's all I said. Yin and Yan.

[MADem]

56. To respond to your edited/added question, I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

I'm having a conversation and expressing an opinion or two. You're entirely free to ignore me entirely, or believe whatever you want. If you want to believe in atheism, be my guest--no one, least of all me, is stopping you. Unlike many here, I am not so presumptous to insist that I have all the answers on this subject. I only have opinions, the odd rhetorical question, and the absolute certainty that I don't claim to have the answers about belief, lack thereof, or an entirely unprovable claim of any degree of certainty about the subject at hand.

Are people not permitted to express any opinion save yours on the subject? Your didactic approach would suggest so. That's not terribly progressive!

You're getting exorcised, apparently and appearing to be desirous of some kind of smack-down (you won't be getting it, sorry).

Stop taking things so personally--you'll live longer. If you don't want to believe that atheism is a religion, then don't! See? Your problem is solved.

[cleanhippie]

54. Bzzzzzt. Wrong, try again.

Not even close.

[MADem]

55. I'm sorry, but simply because you insist I am "wrong" does not mean I am.

You're not acquitting yourself very well. You're not the "decider" George!

[cleanhippie]

57. Your wrongness is self-evident, not because I say so.

[MineralMan]

3. Looks like there's going to be a series of these essays, from

people all over. Good.

I am an atheist for the same sort of reason: Reason, itself. I simply cannot believe in supernatural entities of any kind. I can study the real world, though, and can read about people who specialized in all sorts of subject matter and explore those subjects intensely. I also read and have read a number of books and essays about religion. The difference between scientific study and religious study is that the religious study is based only on second and third party sources. The subject entities of that study cannot be observed, questioned, or examined directly in any way. So, all religious study is circular in nature. Existence of such entities is because someone said it was. I can't believe anything with that sort of argument. It's not happening.

[humblebum]

31. "...religious study is based only on second and third party sources."-

and subjective first-party sources. That aside, claiming that something does not exist because it is based upon second or third party sources, it does not logically follow that it does not exist. It only means that you have decided to accept only first party (objective) sources.

[Rabblevox]

5. Hate religion all you want (I'm mostly with you), but four questions...

Why is there anything, instead of nothing?

What caused the "Big Bang"?

How did life come from non-life?

How do you explain the startling explosion in human intelligence over the past 100,000 years? (far, far beyond what Darwinian adaptation would call for).

I'm sure you can provide theories to each, and I will poke holes in each. Which means that the theory of a deity cannot be dismissed so cavalierly. Using the principle of "Occam's Razor", the theory of god is actually pretty damn elegant.

Please note: I identify as an agnostic, and broke away from organized religion almost 40 years ago. And I get that you hate all religion.

Just try and hate it smarter.

[MineralMan]

7. I do not need to know the answers to those questions.

They're interesting questions, and I follow the current research and thinking about them all. But, I do not require that I know the answers. As a human being, I am limited in what I can observe and so I am limited in what I can explain. As a species, we are unable to answer those questions, at least so far.

The atheist needn't know the answer to every question. It's not a requirement. For me, though, "God did it somehow" is not really information at all. So, from my perspective, those who actually believe that know nothing at all about the answers to those questions, because they can't answer "how did God do that" any better than I can tell you how those things happened, exactly. Same thing.

So, the bottom line is that I can't answer your questions, and it doesn't matter to me that I can't. I don't see the need to believe something about those things. The study of them is interesting, though.

[Rabblevox]

9. I'll buy that. However...

Refusing to accept "god did it somehow" (which I also refuse to accept), is light-years away ( even at the newly accelerated speed of light) from saying "god is impossible".

I am a science-oriented, nuts&bolts kinda guy. I'm NOT trying to make a case for god.

What I AM saying is that it's a hypothesis that cannot be ruled out. No more or less than that.

[MineralMan]

10. Well, I consider it more of a conjecture than a hypothesis.

The existence of any sort of deity, I mean. I dismiss it as so improbable that it's not worth spending any time on. The knowledge we've gained about the universe and the operations of the laws of physics all points towards a natural, physical cause for the questions we can't answer yet. It doesn't seem to point toward some sort of magical, supernatural cause. The conjecture that a deity did it is just an excuse for not knowing much. We know more than we did when that deity was thought into being. Yes, we do.

[Rabblevox]

11. Yes, we do. But do I need to remind you that just over 100 years ago, most scientists...

considered powered flight impossible? Or that 20 years ago there was no serious discussion about "dark matter" or "dark energy"?

The universe is composed of strange things, young Horatio, and I refuse to rule out conjectures just yet.

[MineralMan]

12. You're more than welcome to do as you see fit.

Why would I try to convince you to do otherwise?

[Silent3]

32. I wonder how many well educated scientists would have called...

...powered flight impossible. Perhaps a few, but I rather doubt that a majority of scientists before Kitty Hawk would have stomped their feet and categorically denied the slightest possibility of powered flight.

Popular histories of science, of course, love to dig up every quote they can of someone, anyone, adamantly insisting that a thing which later proved true was false, false was true, or possible was impossible. Such quotes make the telling of the story of a new discovery or invention all the more dramatic, but I suspect most of the time it's an inaccurate portrayal of the reality of scientific thinking on most subject matter.

Further, for every seemingly crazy idea which eventually turns out to be true, there are hundreds or thousands of ideas which remain crazy, and in fact which come to be seen as even more ridiculous over time than when they were first conceived. If one proposes that the lesson to be learned from every crazy idea which turns out to be true is that we should seriously entertain every crazy idea in the first place just in case it might bear fruit later, we'd be lost wasting enormous time and effort on futile research while more promising ideas were starved for money and time.

One simply has to adjust one's bullshit filter as best as one can, accept that on occasion one will make a mistake now and then, and move on. Being so "open minded" that your brains fall out on the floor is not a solution. There is very little I rule out as entirely impossible, but there are plenty of ideas that deserves no more than a passing acknowledgement of their remote hypothetical possibility.

[MADem]

15. I take it on faith (deliberate bit of business there) that I don't know the answers

to the questions you posed!

I am not a religious person, but I don't mind people who are, or who aren't--unless they crawl up my ass and INSIST that I see things the way they see them.

I rule nothing out, though, either. I just don't know.

[cleanhippie]

42. I tend to agree with you.

But can you point to some examples of a non-believer "crawl(ing) up(your)ass and INSIST(ing) that I see things the way they see them"?

[MADem]

48. I have been hectored by annoying jerks over the course of my life

on all sides of the issue.

I've gotten the "You're a stupid shit if you believe," argument, and "You're going to hell if you don't" argument, and "You need to pick a fucking side" argument more times than I can shake a stick at. I've had some friends/acquaintances get pretty obnoxious, too, when I refused to commit to their way of thinking.

See, here's my bottom line: I have no fucking clue and don't pretend to know anything one way or another. The only certainty I have is uncertainty...and that's OK with me. I can live with that. Apparently, that POV is annoying to some. See, I MUST be CONVINCED! Or ELSE!

I don't know how I can "point to some examples" for you, though, unless you possess the gift of mind-reading over great distances. I don't live my life online (and I've logged many years of life before there was anything known as "online"). I'm afraid I haven't recorded these annoying conversations over the decades and put them up on YOUTUBE with an amusing slideshow to accompany them. I have had plenty of them, though, but mostly in "real life" with humans in immediate proximity to me.

[ZombieHorde]

29. As far as we can tell, all supernatural possibilities are equally likely.

Super natural explanations for the universe are limited only by our imaginations, so I don't think Occam's razor would rule in favor for one of the god guesses. Saying the universe supernaturally created itself, or stuff magically travels back in time "at the end of the universe" to "the beginning," seems simpler than saying an all powerful, all knowing entity designed everything.

Self created, magic time travel, and god all have same basic problem; how did it all begin, but the god explanation has many additional problems; e.g., why doesn't it make its presence known, why did it design Earth to have natural disasters, does the "fact" it knows everything mean the future is predetermined, etc?

Disclaimer: I don't actually believe any of the theories in this reply. I don't know how the universe came to be, or if it always existed, etc.

[laconicsax]

34. Argument from ignorance.

Not only that, but introducing a god as an answer adds complexity and still leaves the question unanswered.

Take the question, "What caused the "Big Bang"?"

Answering "god did it" immediately introduces the questions of "which god" and "how." Even if you can somehow whittle down the infinite possible gods to the Abrahamc one for the first part, the question of "how" is unanswerable unless the natural mechanism by which the big bang occured is the answer in which case, answering "god did it" is adding an unnecessary explanatory step and opening the door to a host of questions about the nature of this god.

That's not the kind of answer that satisfies Occam's razor.

BTW: The current scientific body of knowledge offers possible answers to your four questions without needing to invoke a god.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

35. While I think all four questions you asked are deeply flawed,

I have to take particular issue with the assertion that the evolution of the human brain is a violation of Darwinian natural selection. Do you have any evidence for the claim that the brain could not have evolved?

[cleanhippie]

41. There is a simple explanation for all of your questions...

I don't know.


And you know what separates me (and the author of this essay in the OP) from religious folks? The fact that I am willing to admit that I don't know, and that I will keep looking for an answer, while the religious THINK they know, even though there is no evidence to support them knowing anything at all, and they have stopped looking for the answer.

[immoderate]

58. Occam's Razor? God did it?

The Jewish god, right? What about the 4000 or so other deities that have been worshiped by humans? Part of your "elegant" explanation?

I think your razor needs an edge. :shrug:

--imm

[humblebum]

14. Merely confirms my opinion of atheism - that it is indeed

narrow-minded in its orientation, and hostile to truly "free thought." There is nothing free thinking about it. It condemns other forms of thought and it has not cornered the market on reason. If it must rely on ridicule to convince the world of its truth and beneficence, it reveals itself as a farce.

[MineralMan]

16. Amazing. You take the words of one writer and one essay and

apply them to all atheists. How strange! The essayist is not attempting to explain what others think - just herself. Nobody speaks for atheism as a philosophy of millions of people. It's so odd that you take this essay to be anything other than what it's title says: "Why I am an atheist." One person, speaking for herself. Please think about this.

[humblebum]

18. That "one person, speaking for herself" is parroting words

and phrases that have been posted here, as well as many other places, for a very long time.

[MineralMan]

20. Parroting? Now, I don't know the author of that short essay,

but I wouldn't characterize her in any way. The thinking she describes is fairly close to what led me and probably millions of others to atheism. I did not read books about it or listen to speeches until long after I had decided that I was unable to believe in supernatural entities of any kind. That happened in my early 20s. Now, I'm 66 years old, and I have read some of that stuff.

The process of rational thinking is a commonplace, and it is arrived at naturally, through general education. There's no "parroting" necessary.

[humblebum]

22. I am very close to you in years, but age really has very little to do with it.

This is not a wholesale criticism of atheists, but of the so called "new Atheist movement" of which Pharyngula is associated with. And when one sees a general condemnation of thoughts and ideas that do not fit the atheistic mold, then it certainly opens itself to criticism.

[MineralMan]

25. If you're going to criticize rational writing, you'll have to do it

in rational terms, you see. If you can rationally refute what the essayist said, by all means take a stab at it. Your reply refuted nothing and made unsupported broad generalizations. You can try again, though.

[humblebum]

27. I think I made it quite clear. When an atheist declares that his or her

epistemology or mode of reasoning is the only "rational" POV that there is, then they are, in effect, denying that any other has any merit. Fortunately, that point of view is held by a minority. There is nothing "free thinking" about atheism because it puts limitations on types of thought.

[Rabblevox]

19. Unfair. Cleanhippie paints with a VERY broad brush, she had better be ready for the same treatment.

[MineralMan]

21. Oh, my. Having visited the link, it's clear that the essay was not

written by that DUer. The essay was partially quoted and linked here. It represents the thinking of a different individual than Cleanhippie.

[humblebum]

23. Cleanhippie does not like to use quotation marks. nt

[MineralMan]

24. It was quite clear that this was from the source at the link, and not

the poster's own words. That's pretty much the norm here. I always click the link and go read the entire thing, since we can only post excerpts here. Hence the snip... in the post. When I do that, I always seem to find out who wrote the content and other things. This OP was clearly an excerpt from someone else's writing.

[humblebum]

26. I merely said that Cleanhippie does not like to use quotation marks.

Nothing more.

[cleanhippie]

46. So then what was the point of making that comment then?

:popcorn:

[cleanhippie]

45. Humblebum does not like to use reason or logic. nt

[cleanhippie]

44. I thought that was quite clear. I guess it just goes to show how few people actually READ...

:shrug:

[cleanhippie]

43. Yeah, yeah, blah, blah, you say that on every thread.

[trotsky]

28. Once again we see that when people don't like what an atheist is saying,

they attack the person rather than their words. So predictable.

[darkstar3]

30. C'est la vie.

[Rabblevox]

33. Not gonna speak for others, but I DID attack the words, not the person. /nt

[trotsky]

36. Actually, you did neither.

You attacked a straw man.

[socialshockwave]

37. Basically I can sum it up in a few words:

"I'm an atheist 'cause I'm right and you're wrong. Religious people are stupid and deny science HAIL SCIENCE /goose-step"

[darkstar3]

38. If you've never heard of Godwin's Law, now would be a great time to look it up.

[socialshockwave]

39. I know all about Godwin's Law. I wasn't even making a reference

to Nazism. Goose-stepping was used long before the Nazi's and is still being used now.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.