You are having more of an effect than I thought.
Regards,
Shodan
You should see what you’re doing to the simpering irrational asshole numbers.
I wouldn’t either. I address them as Sir, Mr., or Ms. If they ask why I’ll tell them the truth. I won’t be an ass about it, but I’ll let them know my opinion. If they don’t like it. Tough.
On anger:
Anger is a natural emotion and can have positive effects, namely driving someone to take action. The problems only arise when you can’t control your anger when relating to other people, because when confronted by anger, people’s defenses go up and typically regard angry-person as a wingnut. So my suggestion would be to Get angry, engage calmly.
On Der Trihs:
You could base a drinking game on how often he/she begins his/her post with***“No,…”*** 
Shodan rarely makes me laugh but 
I do actually remember another thread where I remarkably found myself agreeing with him. I came away thinking that however and permanently warped his wannabe mind has become, he means well.
And they call Silvia of Sweden “Queen” even though she’s not your (or my) Queen. So?
That’s really good. Thank you.
I’m not quite sure what you are asking here Czarcasm, but for me the theorizing about a HADD “Hyperactive Agency Detection Device” in the brain is something that I find interesting. I’ve tended towards a stance of empirical agnosticism for one major reason: every historical human culture has had religion, which suggests strongly to me that there is either an external or internal reason for this. HADD provides a possible internal mechanism for explaining the origins of religion and its hardy persistence. The proof of HADD wouldn’t (technically) prove the lack of an external reason, that is it wouldn’t technically disprove the existence of god(s) – but for me it would move the likelihood further towards the “not exist” position that atheists assert should be the default premise.
Someone here on the 'Dope explained to me once that the reason the US needs such a high wall between Church and State is because of this; that made a lof of sense to me.
<AOL> Me too. 
Julia Sweeney.
Mind you, the Mahers and the Hitchens are certainly the people who can effectively make headlines as talking heads with outrageous soundbytes. By doing so, they can force the subject into the national debate.
But that’s completely different undertaking than winning people over, and the methods need to be just as distinct. Conversion is not going to happen en masse by force, but rather on a personal level far under the radar of the talking points news cycle. By an atheist evangelist engaging people whom we’re asking to take what will be for them the scariest thing they will ever do. And when they so begin that journey, it’s a delusion that they will compete it in a single bound. It is more likely to happen by degrees. And for those first trepidatious steps, I will ALWAYS point to a “Letting Go of God” before a “Religulous.”
Did you read post #230? If you don’t understand the difference, maybe when it’s explained more bluntly you’ll get it. Hint: I’ll bet everyone that calls Silvia of Sweden “Queen” agrees that she’s actually a queen.
Even rabid anti-Monarchists?
Well, then I hope you are equally opposed to using all religious based titles, (the Deacon’s not a messenger, the Pope’s not my father), or as Michael Ellis put it:
Calling Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullāh the Prophet Muhammad is no different to calling Silvia Queen of Sweden. It is a useful descriptor that identifies that Muhammad from any other Muhammad. And it is true in-so-far as public acclaim (whether by Muslims or Swedes) states that it is true.
I can’t see that calling Muhammad a Prophet endorses Islamic beliefs… any more than me referring to that Judeo-Christian mythological figure with the wings and flaming sword as the *Archangel Michael * implies that I believe in Angels. It does however serve to differentiate “him” from my nephew Michael.
Hate causes depression…anger turned inward also causes depression. You are trapped in a never ending cycle. The more you hate religion the more you will become depressed. Surely, there are some aspects of organized religion (no matter how small) that are positive. Perhaps, you should focus on such and just let go of all that hate. You will feel better I think…
Yes, DT, give in…join us…you will be happier this way…
One of us! One of us!
I thought Der Trihs didn’t participate in BBQ threads about himself. Huh.
Because generally they consist of a bunch of people who hate me piling on with insults and implied violence or wishes for violence against me. Even when I don’t show up. Quite different than the OP.
And I generally try to remember to stay out of Pit threads against any member of the forum; fair’s fair.
((Der))
Oh you!
Fair’s fair. I can behind that.
Nah I didn’t mean it like that…
Religion does not claim to answer questions like say “How does physics work?” and even when religion seems to contradict science it’s quite likely it’s metaphor or parable. Science has yet to however give certain prove that God or the afterlife doesn’t exist. And before you say there is no evidence it exists I will say this: Back in 200 AD no Roman had any idea that the American continent existed and no way to get prove, but does that mean that the American continent didn’t exist?
Cite?
I was saying how religion may have moral objections to certain uses of science.
Also please do not equate all Christians with Jack Chick type fundamentalists or Jim Jones type cultists.
Not really. Marx used facts and evidence in his theories, it refutes contrary evidence, and if you’ve talked to an actual communist he will be not be fanatical about it. BTW, what would be your political views?
I am not bashing anyone I am just asking your opinion on them
False comparison. Continents were things known to exist, that didn’t violate any known rules of nature. So speculating about them was far more reasonable than speculating about gods. It would have been closer to speculating about an undetected planet orbiting Alpha Centauri.
Hello. I quoted him.
I really suggest you go read something about the actual history of Communism.
I already gave you what little opinion I have.
I find that particular comment…specious. Not attempting to pile on here, at all. The world used to be flat, remember?
People thought that according to the rules of nature the earth was flat, and the Sun revolved around it.
You quoted him yes but you didn’t prove whether he actually said it. For instance I could say you said “I think murder is fine.” and I’d be “quoting” you but it wouldn’t be true.
Yes and I think communism has been a terrible philosophy that killed millions of people directly and indirectly and unworkable in reality however it is not a religion unless Nazism, conservatism, liberalism, socialism all are religions.
Ok.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof of existence is on religion, not science.