and thus i dub thee... Darth Fury...

whom i shall keep as a pet for all eternity, or at least until i find some one with bigger fangs... and a spork

remind me to send you a Deagle for CHRISTMAS >.> hehe

^^^About as useful as a snake harness. 

Yoda might disagree!

However, I share a certain willingness to spar (not physically, I'm not that hypocritical ) with believers.  I'm sometimes disappointed when people don't want to push the issue, as I'm ready with the pooper scooper for the shit that could come out their mouths.

Worst $20 I ever spent. 

Furyan;

Sounds less like rage and more like frustration. Have you ever had moments where the world dissolves into a red haze? Have you lashed out and destroyed innocent inanimate objects because the pain and anger was simply too much to bear for another moment? Have you tried to harm another being without even being really aware of your actions or motives?

That's rage.

If you're there, get help. If you're there, it's not about other peoples' beliefs, it's about your ability to deal with your own issues, and please, please, get help. If you're not there, please don't dismiss and marginalize what those of us who've been there and made the effort to get functional have been through.

We do apreciate those who do get on the bandwagon in the challenge of absurd hocus pokus claims. In your strive to challenge superstition, do not let your hate consume you. I was merely pointing out to Pinapple that he has no clue what atheists go through and how much we are expected to never question absurd claims.

He shouldn't be suprised at your reaction. But as justified as you may feel, we at the same time must not let hate consume us. Christians often say, "Love the sinner not the sin". I guess you could say atheists could have their own version, "Love the claimant, not the claim"

We can, and do love theists. They are our co-workers, family members and friends. In your rightfull challenge of superstion, dont become so hatefull that you isolate yourself from the world. Atheists and theists all live on the same planet and we may think the other is "full of shit" on the issue of deities, but put your anger to positive use, and also accept the fact that the world's population will not be a clone of you. 

You might be right.  However, this is the first time in that 2000 years that non-Christians have had a legitimate voice.  Throughout most of Christian history, disagreement has merited excommunication, banishment, extra taxes (you should read up on this... it's fascinating stuff!), prison, or death.

It'll be interesting how Christianity can stand up to open criticism.  It's never really had to do that before.

On the other hand, rage was responsible for the civil rights movement, sufferage, child labor laws, and hundreds of other good things.  It's not the rage, it's what the rage is directed at that matters.

I'm not trying to take away his Free speech, I am merely exercising mine. 

Ok, I'll bite(BA DUM CHA)

You do know this site charges extra for theists having a sense of humor. 

I think the levity on our parts may help those in both camps put down the machetties. I am fine with verbal brawls, but nothing is worth actually coming to phyisical blows in reality.

Dont get me wrong Wave, I make no bones about the fact I think deity claims are the worst and most absurd attempts at explaining life and are based on utter fiction and the wishfull thinking of their respective cheerleaders(incert label here).

But, I will never forget that there are two great equalizers in life. At one point the Pope and I, George Bush and Hillary, we all have passed gass and we will all pass away.

THe Pope's "Holy Spirit", Bush's WMD, and Hillary's good looks. 

THe neurotoxicity of the Pope's Holy Spirit and Bush's WMD affected my judgement when I got to Hillary.

Coulter and Hillary? Isn't there already a thread about beastiality?

I would say it did affect your judgment. I'd say that she must have slipped you a "mickey", but that would date me, so to be more up to date, Hillary must have slipped you a Rufy.

Funny how the theist always tries to marginalize a justly angrey person by equating them to a disgruntled rebelious teen.

Funny how the atheist who claims to be rational exagerates any implied critism of an atheist in order to paint them as a persecuted martyr.

You try to paint us as negitive pessimists.

Sorry, when did i do this? Are you referring to my post in particular or just projecting what some other theist may have done.

I am surprised at the level of defensiveness on this forum.

You're not the only one! Wavefreak, that was damned funny.

*yawns*

Well I'm not feeling defensive but I'm going to have to generally agree with Brian.

The person who wrote the OP is on an atheist forum.  This is the PERFECT place to bitch about any religion.

So somebody to throw out the old "Call the Wambulance.", "Stop crying", or "Stop Whining" is simply trying to embarass somebody into not talking about what they are pissed/upset about.

Crazy how you always have some dick doing that and then we pay some shrink $250 an hour so we can "bitch" to somebody at least.

Far be it from me to interfere with your sense of injured martyrdom.

Although i do find the incongruity between the concepts of "rational response" and "bitching about religion" more than a bit amusing.

SOME OF THE REFUTATIONS ARE SO F*****G OBVIOUS AND EASY!

This, for me, ironically enough is the problem with the extreme aggressive / defensive approach. The "angry" approach makes it soooo easy for those in the opposite camp, and indeed the middle ground, to dismiss (or refute to use your word) you as angry extremists who can be safely ignored.

 I think it damages your case. State your truth calmly, persistantly and persuasivly using the rational approach you proport to defend i think you would be more effective. 

Put it this way. When looking for examples of "negative" religion to question / attack who provides you with the best targets. The preachers who quietly get on with what they do and do lots of good work in their community or those who go on GOD tv and issue thundering denuniations about how all atheists are moral vacuums heading for hell and all homosexuals should be stoned?

But then i suppose it depends what type of "church" this is. Is your goal to give support and succour to those who already hold your views and reinforce one anothers beleifs or is your goal to increase the profile and acceptability of your beleifs to a wider audience.

Are you evangelical atheists or insular ones?

Regards

Seeker

Wouldn't it be better to do the opposite of what you say since YOU have the theist label?

LOL, you mean that because i'm a theist you can safely assume that you should do the opposite of what i suggest? In that case ON NO ACCOUNT send me a cheque for £30,000.

Why can't we be both? or neither? Why can't we be people with ONE similar facet of our respective ideologies? Why can't we JUST BE atheists without a colloquially derogatory adjective in front of it? Did it ever occur to you that atheists didn't begin putting ad hominems into their descriptions of theists until atheism was mislabeled?

Well individually you can't be both, they are muturally exclusive! Although of course there will be some in either camp. And i'm sorry if you found "evangelical" and "insular" to be derogatory. I should remember that in your world evangelical has negative connatations. I meant it in purely the descriptive sense.

And i would not wish to comment on what makes atheists (or theists) resort to ad hominems. I'm simply don't know. I sespect that the answer is rather more complex than "because they were mislabeled".

You've lost me here. 10 days? You make an interesting point re enabling behaviour of moderates though. That might be worthy of its own thread...

BTW. I'll overlook the incorrect usage of 'church' as long as you promise to buy a friggin' dictionary instead of a new holy book the next time you make it to Borders or Amazon.

Did'nt mean to offend boss. Just a figure of speech. BTW i looked up "church" on the web (cos i can't afford a dictionary). THe definition which fits the sense i was using was the one on wiki.

"A church is an association of people who share a particular belief system."

apparently

"The term church originated from the pre-Christian Germanic kirika"

So being pre christian it can be accurately applied to any group sharing a belief.

However i prefer this one

"Where people go to hide from God"
www.belacquajones.com/dictionary.php

LOL

Regards

Seeker

I was only trying to illustrate the knee jerk reactions of some atheists when they encounter statements like "The Earth is only 6000 years old. The Bible says so!" or "You're going to spend eternity in hell because you masturbated! Sinner!" and the like. So dumb...

No, it's not. I couldn't agree more. It was this way looong before the "Moral Majority" though. The same thing happened when Caesar's Council of Nicea institutionalized Christianity. It wasn't just non-Christians that were persecuted, it was also monotheists, and all kinds of other people.. ANYbody that didn't subscribe to their PARTICULAR brand of belief. 

I totally agree. Everytime G-d's people are persecuted, and scattered, we grow and thrive wherever we are chased. 

And every time they get too much power, it corrupts them, just like it does other people. Except that by extension, the faith itself becomes a little more compromised each time.  

Without belief, ok? No 'fine lines' needed.

Figured out why Furyan's emotions toward christianity trend toward rage yet?

To be helpful:

How To Use The Quote Function

There is also a post concerning how to do one's 'signature'.

"My soda was the first beverage because it's can is red".

"Let us make them in our immage" was a line used in the Ugartic text used by the cannanites who had Baal, Yahwey and Asurah as characters long before the Hebrews incerted them in the OT.

Again, which makes more sense to you?

1. "I can, in reality, fart a Lamborginni out of my ass|"

or

2." I made that up"

OR

1. Thor makes lighting

or

2. Someone made that up

Ruling classes of all ancient cultures saw their families and good fortune as divine intitlement. In your bible the super hero is worshiped as a king. It is a literary, not litteral, reflection of all cultures and their false assumption that ruling and power was a right givin to that culture by a super hero in the sky.

Hero worship and "Chosen people" is not an invention of Christianity or Hebrews. It was a false assumption by ignorant polytheists and ignorant monotheists who thought that a magic sky daddy would swoop down and save them.

"My sky daddy has different details" doesnt change the fact that prior cultures to Christians and Hebrews WERE NOT the first to postulate a magical super hero.

If the Cannanites were capable of making up fiction and believing it to be fact, if the Ancient Egyptians were capable of the same, what makes Christianity POOF, magically immune to mundain and ordinary human behaivor?

You worship ancient fiction and believe it to be fact. I hope someday you are brave enough to excape your superstiton. I think you will find, if you have the guts to, that being freed from the shackles of religion, you will find, just like the atheists here have, that no magic is needed to explain life, or to be good.

Fiction is fiction and we cannot help you face that if you dont want help. 

Negitive? You wonder why people get pissed at you when you call them negitive?

Negitive people had |Gallileo put under house arrest because he had POSITIVE data that proved that the earth rotated around the sun and not the sun around the earth.

You misspercieve criticism as negitive and that is YOUR problem, not mine.

Me, |"You are about to run that stop sign"

You, "No I am not|"

Me,"STOP BEFORE YOU RUN THAT STOP SIGN|"

You, "|You hate me|"

Please tell me how it is negitive to point out a magical claim as such? Would it be negitive to tell someone that voodoo dolls dont work? Would it be negitive to tell someone that using chicken livers for "faith healing" is nothing but a scam?

No, we are not negitive. We are positive that when people lose superstition they can open their eyes to data rooted in reality rather than santa for adults.

You fasely and ignorantly accuse us of being negitive because you are not used to being challenged. You are being negitive because your ego wont allow you to see the positive alturnitive we are offering you to replace debunked fairy tales. 

Small but significant point: archaelogical work has shown it to be highly unlikely that the pyramids were built with slave labor. It's far more likely that they were built via massive effort of egyptians, not slaves. 

I think 'still' is a bit of a stretch, considering not only the diaspora, but also that the land area in question included a much larger area than modern Israel. 

It's actually what the Israelis are thinking now, too, as they've realized that if they don't get the 'Palestinian Question' resolved, within the next generation, the majority of the population in the 'Jewish State' won't be jewish.

(Oh, and for the record, there are Pharonic Reconstructionists tottering around, too, just like the Hellenists and Assatruar.) 

Well, I'm not screaming, cursing, or claiming I live to cut others down, and frankly, I also have issues with your implication that we're all negative pessimists, but I'm optimistic that it's just a misunderstanding.