Cameron, I'm not sure who Adam Carolla is or how he conducted his research into the percentages of Christians in jail. I assume he performed some type of survey into the prison system, taking into consideration the percentage of religious followers in catchment area.

Every religion has crack pots, wayward souls, extremists, this isn't a point.

You mention you'll teach your kids the difference between Good & Bad, for an atheist what is that? Christians have two big books & 10 little commandments to help guide/raise each generation. Budhists have karma a very simple philosophy that makes them strive to do good on this earth.

Your kids are just going to have you... you & the communities stand point on what’s right & wrong. Now you might turn out to be a super dad, but what about your son. Will he be the same great teacher, will he instill morality & a sense of decency in your grandchildren. If the whole of society abandoned religion in three generations time we'd be nothing but nihilist's .

So do you believe you have a soul? What is it you think makes you, you?

__________________
Ho's gotta eat too

Well certainly not the bottom of my foot!

I just can't take people seriously when simple words are so badly misspelt!!!

SOUL

__________________
RS RA
The more people I meet the more I like my Dog!

12.463 1/4 mile, not bad for an old school Liberty [DECEASED]

MY08 Liberty Tuned by STi

I'm talkin 'bout SOUL POWA!

I wish I had the ability to lock threads.

Ha.. ha.. very funny fkrs, what I find hard to take serious is people who crap on about simple spelling mistakes but don't actually contribute anything. If I wanted my grammatical shortcomings pointed out I’d ask for an opinion from someone that mattered.

Here are some other words I looked up just for you scary.

Pedantic, schoolish, trivial, abstruse, didactic, egotistic, fussy, sententious, hairsplitting, nitpicking, ostentatious, pedagogic, precious, semantics, unneeded, unproductive, useless, valueless, worthless, petty, inconsequent, inessential, minor, niggling, paltry, aimless,

__________________
Ho's gotta eat too

He's a comedian, they had some numbers from a survey conducted in the USA, they broke down something like this:

He had a valid point.

I think I already said it, but when was the last time an extremist atheist did anybody any harm? Removing the extremists, when has an atheist come up to you in the street and asked to talk about a new saviour, or come knocking on your door handing out flyers, or woken me up early on a sunday with their god-damned singing...

What are you, stoned? Good and bad, their very basic concepts. How can you seriously assume these ideals cannot be taught without having a big cloudy ghost hanging over my shoulder?

Stealing a car = bad.
Donating an organ to save a life = good.

Fairly basic concepts to pass onto a little one too.

What's wrong with just an idea? Why is it not enough simply to say "I will strive to do no harm." Why do you need to attach some kind of fuckin' dogma to the idea of just being a decent person? Weakness sir, weakness. If you need an imaginary friend to back you up, it's cause for concern IMHO.

"God" forbid I have kids, but what's wrong with that? You're telling me that a human being, in command of their own destiny is incapable of providing basic life skills to its offspring?

What's morality? In some countrys you could realistically kill your sister if she dishonours your family, if you don't at least knock the shit out of her then you'd be the amoral one. I think that's barbaric, but to them it's all jim dandy, so tell me sir, what is morality?

Are you, in actual fact, a crazy person?

I just ask as it seems you're not exactly in touch with reality, assuming that society as a whole would decay to the point of everybody being an extreme pessimist just because there was no blind faith. If that's the way you'd fall apart without your imaginary buddy to fall back on, that's just fine for you, but to assume everybody else is quite that weak and "soulless" is a real stretch.

I have a sole on the bottom of each of my feet.

The human 'soul' is a fairly interesting device. It's not much more than the end result of the brains chemical makeup and environmental stimulus. If I was brought up among a family of hunting types (for example), I'd probably be more interested in pig shooting. If i was born into a religious family, I'd probably not have any trouble believing in a bunch of fairy tales.

Think about it a minute, unless you're born into this crap it's a really, really hard bunch of stories to swallow. The 'born agains' are an interesting offshoot of the religious set, usually more 'hard core' in their beliefs than those who have been raised on them, it seems they throw themselves into it (even the amazingly illogical stuff) completely without a second thought. I think they're pretty interesting..

All that said, there's just no proof for any God. None. Zip. Zero. Prove one exists, you'll get my house.

Amen to that!

__________________
Speed doesn't kill. Suddenly becoming stationary does!

Some words on Atheism from a much smarter, much more collected gentleman than I will ever be, Penn Jillette (of Penn & Teller, the magic duo).

Those words on Atheism sound quite plausable and are well written but unfortunately flawed. Let me explain:

My question to evil cabbage is where does he come from? Have you ever heard of the quote:
"From nothing, nothing comes", that is the fact that something exists today is proof that something exists before.

That is, If you are here today, where did you come from, there are two options:

Firstly: Something was orginally self created (the concept of the big bang and evolution, that is life was self created, living matter evolved out of non-living matter), or
Secondly: We arose out of a self-existant being.

The first option is fortunately (or unfortunately depending on how you look at it) a logical impossibility. How can something be and not be at the same instance and in the same relationship (remember shakesperes age old question?). What i'm trying to say is it is impossible for life to create itself, because it didn't exist to perform the creating act. Consequently, the concept of evolution is logically flawed from the beginning as life did not originally exist to create itself.

Furthermore, there is a huge range of scientific evidence, that can be interpreted in a number of ways. You may argue that science is an objective field where people look for truth by continually observing the facts. But may i ask you, was anyone alive today there when the big bang occurred? Experimental science, like measuring the flowrate of water through a pipe can be repeated and checked, however, historical science e.g.: evolution, palentaology (sorry about spelling) is based on the scientists interpretation of the available evidence. Christian scientists interpret the evidence in light of what the bible says (because they believe this to be true). However, scientists who do not acknowlege a God will interpret the evidence in light of a theory that has no space for God - Evolution.

If you think that evolution is a solid theory, i must disagree, as was suggested in my earlier posts i believe that evolution is portayed as being scientific fact when this is far from the truth (the world's leading evolutionists cannot prove to you that it is true).

Kid's are taught in schools that evolution is true. One of the proofs used to do this is Haeckel's embryo's. The basic idea is that if all the embroy's in an early stage of development are the same then it is evidence that we have a common ancestor. There are two sets of pictures below, the top shows what is given to kids in textbooks and the bottom shows what the true pictures are. As you can see for yourself, these are radically different. In fact the guy who originally falsfied these pictures was banished from university. Unfortunately these are still used today in textbooks around the world to convince kids that evolution is true, even though this evidence is a complete lie.

There is much more evidence:
For example, why do so many fossils contain evidence that they were fossilised immeadietely: e.g. icthosaur giving birth, fish with scales on it. If these things were fossilised over millions of years (the evolutionary arguement) wouldn't they just be bone? This is evidence of rapid fossilisation - very rapid, something that seems only to be possibel by a global event, maybe such as that described in the flood account of the bible?

In regards to your comments about Jesus and atheism, I am glad to see that you like to think these things through. However, you continually claim to be strong while people who are religious are weak. This is an interesting concept and by the sounds of it satisfies your conscience, yet you do not seem to base your concept of right or wrong on any absolute truth - which is fair enough if you believe right or wrong is completely relative. However, I would like to ask you where your sense of right or wrong and your desire to improve yourself came from. Why is it wrong to steal a car?, Why is it wrong to kill someone? If like you say we are the result of random chance then everyone could have a random sense of right or wrong and what you think is good and not interfering with other people's life could in fact be absolutely terrible for the other person.

My aim here is not to bible bash you but to at least get you to question some of the claims you have strongly and confidently made. You have said that christians have blind faith and will not look at the evidence when no-where in the bible are you asked to throw your mind away while believing. In fact Christians are asked to search long, hard and deep into the faith they possess.
BTW - Im not a christain but greek orthodox. i see the similarites in both religions the same for me to beleive.

The whole premise of religion is blind faith under threat of eternal punishment. ie: if you don't believe in this, you'll go to hell - and therefore you must accept it.

The whole premise of evolution and in fact all of the sciences is that a logical demonstrated proof is observable and repeatable before something is accepted as fact. Christian "science" is a logical exception to this rule, obviously, because of it's basis in blind faith.

I don't understand WHY people believe religious propaganda - it's all simply blind and serves only to damage humanity.

The scary part: George Bush is a religious fundie.