Ok have no clue where to post this...so I figured this was a good place....well I think....maybe...seriously I think I lost a few IQ points listening to this....so did Craig Ferguson...he has my sympathies.....damn it did I spell it correctly? AAAHHHH!!

Ben Stein on Craig Ferguson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HRMabkNNZM

Be amazed by the stupidity of Ben Stein (I didn't think it was possible to get any more dumber....but he DID!!!.

This kind of shit makes me embarrassed to be the same species as those who take this stuff seriously.

Do theists REALLY believe this shit?

Is this really any different from seeing animal shapes in the clouds, or finding a "secret code" in your alphabet soup? Kiddie games are over! Grow up people!

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/offbeat/2008/07/30/stang.holy.cat.wndu

I apologize in advance for what follows.  I wanted to be sure no one could accuse me of taking anything out of context, so here's all of the context.  Also I like to have all of the verses presented with the information based on them so I thought I would provide the same courtesy here.  Ezekial 26 is a 21 verse chapter which primarily focuses on a prophecy by Ezekial against the city of Tyre located in modern day Lebanon.

I've recently had this going through my head quite a bit.  There are many other explanations for evil I am sure.  Right now I'm going to address one and let's see if people can post comments about it or post other explanations or definitions.  I'd also like to note that the definition I am presenting is not the definition I accept.  I'm pointing it out because it is a definition I have encountered in debates and so one that many theists accept, but which is fatally flawed.

Evil is a necessary opposite of good, like darkness is a necessary opposite of light.

There is the definition.  Almost seems reasonable.  I can understand that it can be poetically or even metaphorically useful to compare good and evil to light and dark.  The comparison, however, fails if one is trying to make the two sets analogous to one another.  The most obvious reason which I will address first is that light and dark is boolean, darkness really is an absence of light.  This is due to the fact that light itself is the actual presence of photons.  But evil is not the absence of good because good and evil are not boolean

good and evil exist in degrees.  Then there is also neutral.  The absence of goodness is not necessarily evil, since it could be neutral, but the absence of light is necessarily darkness.

Ignoring all of this though and accepting for the sake of argument that good and evil are necessary opposites (a technique known as reductio ad absurdum) we can reason thus:

Necessity Of Atheism - David Marshall Brooks

There will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural. Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his knowledge of their naturalness and probability. Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by education and supported customs.

The goal is a free and universal society in which the people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good.

Religions the world over are under the necessity of coming to terms with the new conditions created by a vastly increased knowledge and experience.

Here's a stupid question: Can God make a rock so big that even he can't pick it up?

http://www.wonderfulatheistsofcfl.org/Quotes.htm

"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."

- Abraham Lincoln, American president (1809-1865).

"Mr. Lincoln was not a Christian." -- Mary Todd Lincoln

This thread sparked a one on one discussion opportunity between "FindTruth" and Kelly. 

FindTruth stated...

Followed by...

Yeah, that pretty much sums up how it felt.

I'll be posting the e-mail thread below. Names will be changed to protect the intensely obtuse.

-Triften

...Since it's been argued by some that the above is a philosophically 'weak' position, I just felt like pointing-out a few things:

 - 'God' is a crap concept. There no way it could possibly exist; it isn't even defined. It has the same likelyhood for existence as 'Shootle'. Some day in the future, we might come across something and decide to label it 'God', just as we might someday do the same for 'Shootle'. This does not mean 'God' exists; it means the term is just drifting about, waiting to be abitrarily attached to some quantifiable entity as of yet.

 - God in the traditional sense of the word cannot exist. Yahweh violates several physical laws, and the books describing him and his actions are entirely erroneous. They were myths to explain things for which we had no previous explanation; now that we do have said explanations, these texts can and should be treated as fiction.

 -  God has been carried forward on the back of the afore-mentioned myths. These myths have been scientifically disproven; more reasonable theists have then had to invent new myths, based on areas of human understanding that are still fuzzy. But it's still the same old God - we've just tried prettying it up. The fact that we would recognize the myths as erroneous, but not the figure central to them, is borderline lunacy (...at least it's not total lunacy).