I'd love an anti-science post.
But I just can't get myself to write against something that keeps my asthma in check, allows me to travel the long distance to my place of education in a reasonable time, saved my fathers arm after that logging accident and will eventually allow me to live a long live despite that diabetes that everyone says I'm eventually going to get.

Here's an anti-atheist post
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_uieQJSaRXx...0/atheism1.jpg

Bull. You look at the last 100 religion threads in this forum. They're nearly all started by atheists for the purpose of displaying their hatred of religion and their contempt for the religious. Like any of us don't get it already.

To you their beliefs are lies and delusions and then you have the nerve to call it contempt and disrespect when they don't meekly agree with your message of hate. Now that is contemptible.

I like pancakes.

Yes, I read it. The comments are far more interesting than the article. Anyway I think it's mostly bunk. I'm sorry but I just don't believe it's possible and with good reason. It's wrinkly and green. Business, industry, Wall Street, the military, higher education and yes Government all have far to much invested in scientific research and development to ever let anything or anyone interfere with its progress. It's always about the money. Always.

Last paragraph from article.

When has this ever mattered when it comes to getting elected? I don't think politics has evolved to that level yet. We're more concerned with where someone was born or how much tax they paid. Maybe someday.

I think you would be surprised at just how many religious people do not believe in a literal reading of these texts. It is just not necessary when it comes to believing in a Creator.

My brother in law puts blueberries in his pancakes. Yummie.:yep:

What does it tell about the state of a "democracy", when success in in elections id decisively influenced by the amount of money candidates can mobilize to run campaigns and media adverts of either obvious stupidity or hate-filled vitriol? Is he who mobilises more money, more democratic and thus more legitimate? A read a reference to an analysis that should have shown that in 94% of elections for president and houses, the candidates who were able to set up more money for their campaign, made the race.

And as an Austrian commentator that i read yesterday has noted, to whom does Obama now owe his loyalty? to those that gave him their ballot, or those who invested billions and billions of dollars into him? A president obviously owing to big business, candidates obviously being depending on financial investments by big business players - that is not acceptable for a functioning democracy, but since it is being done since a very long time, one really has to ask whether this democracy really is democratic.

It is well-documented that since years I'm saying on this board that I know of now democratic country in the western world anymore. I make no exclusion from that statement. I do not exclude Germany - and certainly not the United States.

Congress is dominated by Republicans, who are now in bitter disappointment, and the Tea Party will react by what it does best: it will become even more vicious and underhanded in its verbal rethorics. The republicans refuse to realise that American society is undergoing massive structural changes, both regarding wealth distribution and ethnic composition, in other words: the Republicans are loosing their core voters, slowly, but constantly.

So the Reps need to make a decision whether they try to become even more right-leaning and trying mnore of what the yhave tried the past years alkrerady, then Obama's appeal for reconciliation already has been made in vain, and congress will stay deadlocked for the next two years at least. which means Obama already has failed as president again. That may make Republicans smile, but for the country it is a disaster. Or the Reps learn how to steal voters from the Democrats, then the reps would need to send Tea Party and the like to hell.

And here is where the science dispute could start to play a role again. The majority of Green voters who abuse and distort science like Scientific American also describes, because being green for them is more quasi-religious belief and Green must be believed to be good, no matter what, would probably stay with the Democrats because them are more prone and vulnerable for political correctness. The more reasonable and realistically thinking Greens could be absorbed by the Republicans if they give up their anti-scientific rants and belief-based dogmas, which would help their reasonability and trustworthiness tremendously.

But that is just academic guessing, I admit. Meanwhile, the US face monumental problems and constantly declining finances, and a political landscape that remains to stay deadlocked in deep division and to a not low degree in hate as well.

That Austrian commentator I mentioned, asked whether Obama really could see himself as a winner. From a certain point of view, Romney, the second-placed, is the winner of first prize: he is free to live as he wants now. Becasue all Obama won, is this: the astronomical debts problem, fiscal cliff, looming budget disaster, political bipartisanship, Iran, China, Pakistan, education, lacking modernisation of powergrid and infrastructure, doubts on the education and health system - and to tackle all that: empty treasure chests and a congress that almost certainly will do its best to throw sticks between his legs at every opportunity and bring him to fall. :) Well, Mr. Obama, enjoy your victory. I think these four yeasrs will be worse than the past four years. In parts, it will be Obama's fault, in parts it also is the Republicans fault, but the biggest share of guilt has to be accepted by the American people who legitimize this farce.

I've said it before and I will say it again. Skybird, your understanding of US politics is rudimentary at best. I will illustrate below.

It is not. In the House of Representatives:

Republican: 233
Democrat: 193

Balance of power is at 218. This is not a supermajority.

US Senate:

Democrat: 53
Republican: 45
Independent: 2

One of the two independents will caucus with the Democrats, who are the majority party. The Democrats also picked up seats in both houses of Congress. Overall, Congress is split.

The so-called Tea Party was not a major factor in the 2012 general elections. In fact, Michelle Bachmann, the self-appointed Tea Party spokesperson, barely won reelection.

Actually, John Boehner has indicated a desire to work with the president. Whether these olive branches will last has yet to be determined, but to claim it has been in vain three days after the general election is premature to say the least. Some light reading on the matter:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...200674876.html

You've got it backwards, Skybird. The Republicans have already pulled to the far right, hence the results. They now seem to be planning a shift towards the center on social issues and immigration. See Gargamel's thread from earlier today.

The Green Party boasts a membership of around 300,000 registered members. Green Party politicians hold no national offices. No one is making a play for them. Your entire premise is erronious.

If that's what you are calling it, fine. But you are guessing using incorrect information. As such, your conclusions are also incorrect.

Well, there's your problem. You seem to be getting news from sources that do not understand what is going on over here.

If you study the history of religion, you'll realize most doctrines were created or redefined by the upper classes to control the masses with fear and guilt. Maybe this was needed in the days of yore, when people feared the unknown, weren't educated, women had no rights, etc. The truth is religion and politics were a two headed monster for most history and really did nothing but insure the powerful to remain so.

Let's face it, the GOP is full of right wing religious radicals that would use government to insure and promote their beliefs on others. It doesn't matter who wins the nomination when you have nuts like Palin, Bachman, Ryan, etc., in the background basically preaching through politics. Their religious residue will stick to the GOP, hurting moderates. These nuts are biased, racist and want to promote their views of morality through government. You would or wouldn't be surprised the number of leading government leaders that still believe in myths over science, that follow a literal bible, wanting to impose a culture on us that existed thousands of years ago. I'm more socially liberal, but fiscally conservative and I tire of losing elections over religious right.

Good point, I havn't seen a single post here claiming that Hurricane Sandy was a weather system created by sodomy.
There havn't been that many cretinism topics and the only noticable anti non religious are written in yubberish so they don't really couint

/thread

And what does any of that have to do with what I said?

Whatever the level of influence the religious right has on the GOP it still doesn't justify the constant insult and contempt that some here continually display about peoples personal beliefs. Do they think their contempt and disdain is going to open a believers eyes to their viewpoint?

If anything such disrespect gives your hated religious right the very influence you bemoan. It's a lot easier to keep people in line with fear when there is an element of truth to the story they can verify for themselves. One but has but to go to anywhere the anti-religious left frequents, internet forums especially, to find that verification. It doesn't matter if it is authored by some pimply faced teenager just to get a rise out of stuffy grownups, the vitriol is constant and vicious and anonymous.

Yubberish! :haha:

You should try a fundy religious forum

Well, I've never attacked personal beliefs of anyone here and I don't know that I've ever seen anyone else do so on a personal level. Nor do I want to convert someone, except maybe to the principle "love others"

Well I hope you realize that it wasn't directed at you personally.

I don't take anything personal on the internet, not to be confused with things I find offensive, like Steve's avatar.