because it amuses me. sorta like watching monkeys fling poo at one another.

nah, railing limit holdem isn't interesting at all. watching these ppl curl up into tight little balls defending themselves is though.

lol. nice.

[QUOTE=Dominic;8246618It's not "atheism" that did this, but my rejection of all things faith based and of any religion.[/QUOTE]


" imagine life without faith!were nothing left but pure reason, it wouldnt be life. but we believe in life, of course we do. we ant prove life in the sense that you can prove a staight line is the shortest distance between two points, yet, there it is.can we still say the whole thing is nothing but a mass of electrons, created out of nothing, meaning nothing?whirling to a destiny of nothing?of course we cant.the electrons themselves seem more intelligent than that. at least, so the chemists said.
hence, we say that reason isnt everything. neither is reason, as most of us see it, entirely dependable, though it emanate from our best minds. what about people who proved that man could never fly?
actually, were fooling ourselves, for deep down in every man or woman, is the fundamental idea of god. it maybe obscured by calamity, by pomp, by whorship of other things, but in some form or another it is there.for faith in a power greater than ourselves, and miraculous demonstrations of that power in human lives, are facts as old as man himself.
we found too, that we had been whorshippers. what a state of mental gooseflesh that used to bring on. do we not invariably whorship people, sentiment, things, money, and OURSELVES?and then, with a better motive,had we not whorshippully beheld a sunset,the sea, or a flower. who of us had not loved something or somebody?how much of these feelings , these loves,these whorships had to do with pure reason? little or nothing , we saw at last.did not these feelings , after all, determine the course of our existance?it is impossibleto say we had no capacity for faith , or love, or whorship. in one form or another we had been living by faith and little else.
-bill w.(we agnostic)

"everybody nowadays, believes in scores of assumptions for wich there is good evidence, but no perfect visual proof. and does not science demonstrate that visual proof is the weakest proof?it is being constantly revealed , as mankind studies the material world, that outward appearances are not inward reality at all. to illustrate:
the prosaic steel girder is a mass of electrons whirling around each other at incredible speed. these tiny bodies are governed by precise laws, and these laws hold true throughout the material world. science tells us so. we have no reason to doubt it.when, however, the perfectly logical assumption is suggested that underneath this material world and life as we see it, there is an all powerful, guiding,creative intelligence, right there our perverse streak comes to the surface and WE LABORIOUSLY SET OUT TO CONVINCE OURSELVES IT ISNT SO. WE READ WORDY BOOKS AND INDULGE IN WINDY ARGUMENTS, THINKING THIS UNIVERSE NEEDS NO GOD TO EXPLAIN IT.WERE OUR CONTENTIONS TRUE,IT WOULD FOLLOW THAT LIFE ORIGINATED OUT OF NOTHING, AND PROCEEDS NOWHERE.
instead of regarding ourselves as intelligent agents, spearhead of gods ever advancing creation, we agnostics and atheists choose to believe that human intelligence was the last word, the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end. rather vain of us, isnt it?
we have learned that whatever the human frailties of various faiths may be, those faiths have given purpose and direction to millions.people of faith have a logical idea of what life is all about. actually, we use to have no reasonable conception whatsoever. WE USED TO AMUSE OURSELVES BY CYNICALLY DISSECTING SPIRITUAL BELIEFES AND PRACTICES WHEN WE MIGHT HAVE OBSERVED THAT MANY SPIRITUALLY MINDED PERSONS OF ALL RACES, COLORS AND CREEDS WERE DEMONSTRATING A DEGREE OF STABILITY, HAPPINESS AND USEFULNESS WICH WE SHOULD HAVE SOUGHT OURSELVES.
instead, we looked at the human defects of these people, and used thier shortcomings as a basis of wholesale condemnation. WE TALKED OF INTOLERANCE, WHILE WE WERE INTOLERANTE OURSELVES.WE MISSED THE REALITY AND THE BEUTY OF THE FOREST BECAUSE WE WERE DIVERTED BY THE UGLINESS OF SOME OF ITS TREES. WE NEVER GAVE THE SPIRITUAL SIDE OF LIFE A FAIR HEARING."
- bill w.( we agnostic)

Believe it or not, Atheists can and do marvel at the things we don't understand and are bigger than us. We just don't ascribe to it some silly Sky Demon.

you mean, like monkies throwing poop at each other?

lol.....you must have a reading comprehension problem. Don't worry, 8th grade should fix that for you.

and believe it or not, MANY people of faith love homosexuals and lesbians,dont judge people by the color of thier skin, dont strap bombs on themselves and blow up innocent woman and children, go to doctors when thier sick, dont believe woman are inferior to men,dont hate people of other religions,and, believe it or not,care about thier enviornment and global climate change

what am i not comprehending?

I never said they didn't, Sparky. But you have to admit that a lot more "people of faith" do preach intolerance than those who are not religious.

so, what is the point of this thread? just letting everyone know what a great person you are?just bored? or maybe campaigning for a noble peace prize?

lets review what weve learned:
OP is not a racist
OP does not kill innocent woman and children
OP goes to the doctors when he's sick
OP doesnt support certain wars
OP cares about climate change
OP doesnt believe woman are inferior to men
OP does not hate people who practice other religions
OP is amused by monkies throwing feces at each other
OP heroically saved the life of a young girl in florida

well, there you have it! you get my vote.

a little of all three. Can I count on your vote?

well, seeing as you atheists are such sticklers for facts, can you prove this? do you have the numbers? maybe the results of some polls maybe? anything?

no, I just have "faith" that it's true.

See how maddening this is?

.

whatever fits into your square head , right?

god bless , dominic! later