Ignorant fools only hurt public perception of Atheism, the reason people don't like atheist is people like them. They need to shut there mouths, its none of their business what others believe and shouldn't try to promote Atheism, its not like its going to save their nonexistent souls. Why push your beliefs on someone if you don't believe in anything? Besides Jesus probably did exist, more proof he did then didnt, though I admit it is difficult to prove someone didn't exist.

Kelly better be right, where he spends eternity depends on it.

They showed their true colors when Sapient said, "Until the end of Christianity." It's all about being anti-Christian, not anti-religion. And the MSM (ABC in this case) showed their contempt for Christianity by not caring that they singled it out for attack. But had he said any other religion like, "Until the end of Islam" or "Until the end of Hinduism", I'm sure John Berman would have given a rebuke.

There's been clowns like this atheist couple before. The problem is the increasing hostility against Christianity from today's MSM. They try to give these bozos recognition and promotion while they threw a fit for days when George W Bush simply answered a question, "What philosopher or thinker has most influenced your life?" by saying "Christ, because He changed my heart."

The MSM also love to refer to "the Constitutional separation of church and state" when in reality there is no such thing.

Shouldn't these two and those like them be called anti-theists (if that is actually a word)?  It's not just that they do not believe, it is that they are against believing.

Hope their teeth don't fall out! When will they start reporting on the end of msm (Lsm)??

There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V

Funny, I was just debating an atheist. That is, funny "ha-ha", not funny superstitious.

ME (regarding this link posted by a fellow NB): We can only conclude that since absolute moral laws do not come from man, then they come from someone higher and intelligent.

This could be space aliens, a MATRIX type scenario, you name the higher intelligence. The options are many.

Atheist: No-no-no. We just haven't explored long enough where these so-called absolutes originate. I'm sure with enough time and faith in man, we will know the answer. But I can absolutely assert that it did not come from a higer intelligence.

--Which is an absurd statement of faith indeed. But people like Richard Dawkins and Penn & Teller make it all the time. 

This also fails to address the little problem of a Jew who reversed His own death. If the resurrection account is true, then He is everything He said He was. Therefore God.

The onus then is upon the atheist to either:

- Prove the resurrection was a hoax or delusion or whatever other explanation there may be.

- Assert and prove there are truly no absolutes (divide by zero).

- Or simply admit the existence of God and state that you just openly; honestly defy Him and would rather live according to your own master yourself.

-PJ

Draft Condi for '08!

Silly silly atheists. The Good News is God is alive. The Bad News is She's French.

You might find The Scientific Existence of a Higher Intelligence of interest in this discussion. The author, Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, retired as Professor of Mathematics from the U. S. Naval Academy in June of 2004. While I do not agree with everything Dr. Herrmann has to say I find much of his research to be thought provoking and useful.

The net upside of religion does not make up for the net downside. Here are some points that are, empirically demonstrated (or proven facts)  

     1)  Basic ethical systems arise even in the absence of religion.  Even chimps look down on stealing and unfaithful mates.  Hence, losing religion does not mean we devolve into anarchy and chaos.   Claiming that we have morals ONLY trough your religious text of choice is simply naïve.

2) Studies show that the LEAST religious states (both U.S. and other countries) where atheism arose naturally (not force by a regime) are the lowest in crime, sexually transmitted disease, teen pregnancy, bigotry are more.   Saying the atrocities of the atheist regimes (i.e. Stalin) are a result of atheism overlook one HUGE thing:  These regimes replaced one idol (god) with another (the regime).  

3)     There a strong POSITIVE correlation between atheism and IQ and education.  So the more you think, the less you believe.

4)    There is a NEGATIVE correlation between atheism and divorce and faithfulness.  So atheists have stronger, happier marriages.

5)    Over 74% of those appointed to the National Academy of Sciences are atheists.  Another 19% are agnostic.  So according to dogma, 93% of this assemblage of some of our countries most brilliant thinkers must be running around raping, pillaging, and killing.

6)     Einstein quite clearly stated that he was puzzled why people thought he was a believer.  He had clearly stated that he did not believe in any type of supernatural or personal god.   All thinking to the contrary is a result of his unfortunate use of metaphorical term "god" when describing the vast unknown of the universe.  By most standards, he would definitely have been considered and atheist.

7)    With an 80% success rate, spiritual [or alien] experiences can be recreated through electromagnetic stimulation of a specific region of the brain.  One university that does this calls the device the "God Helmet".

8)    You cannot prove a negative.  It is not the burden of the secular community to disprove God.  It is the burden of the religious community to prove that God exists.

9)      I was raised as a Christian

10)   The reason I don't believe in the Judeo-Christian god is the same reason I don't believe in Thor or Poseidon.

Now for my opinions:

1)     Unlike most believers, most atheists would eagerly change their position and believe in a supernatural creator if only compelling evidence were presented to support its existence.

2)    The human animal wants to put answers to things.  Early man could answer some things (i.e. rubbing sticks generates heat) because he had the empirical tools to figure them out.   Other things (like why does the sun move across the sky) were beyond their ability to solve.  It is natural that we anthropomorphize some god to explain the sun's movement.

3)    Believers can tell you why they don't believe in Thor or Poseidon but won't/can't apply the same reasoning to their own faith.

4)     Eliminating religion would be virtually impossible.  The most entrenched would not waiver in their faith.  All I want is enough doubt in the believer's minds so they realize that there is a chance they might not be right.   Once that is achieved, then we can keep dogma out of public policy and planes wouldn't fly into buildings.

5)    The premise of Pascal's Wager (it is better to believe and be wrong than not believe and be wrong) is that there is no downside to believing.  The premise, though, is false.   There IS a GROWING downside to believing in dogma.  Dogma is why we have the Inquisition, the Crusades, 9/11, northern Ireland, middle-east issues and (arguably) us being in Iraq.

6)    Dogmatic faith is THE biggest threat to civilization (especially with todays weapons)

7)    The money, time and energy spent on maintaining a religious infrastructure could be better spend on helping people directly.

8)     Churches should NOT be tax exempt except for specific efforts that provide public services without religious proselytizing.

There are many more "empirical" and opinion items, but these come to mind right off.

FVThinker