There's nothing more dangerous than

dumb people with a cause.

"dumb people with guns with a cause" are much more dangerous

"dumb people that become a president and leading worlds super power" <--- now thats deadly

Dumb people that vote for president.  One does not simly walk into presidency, One gets Elected.

Dumb people who believe the fairytales in books like the Bible and the Qu'ran.

Dumb people also put all their faith in Evolution with it's many holes, so don't start throwing stones until you reinforce your glass house a little more.  I am agnostic myself, so you can call me whatever the fuck you want.

>>6

Dude...its like, obvious. Get over it. Unless you have a better theory that doesn't involve magic wands.

Dumb people also put all their faith in Evolution with it's many holes

Yes, dumb people put faith into anything.

However, that doesn't say much about people who have a clue now does it? All those scientists who have a fair bit of confidence are just dumb little people, amirite? Dumber than you, Mr. Agnostic.

But I love a good flamewar, so humor me: tell me about these "many holes"? Elaborate.

Athiests are fucktards.

>>9
because they're such darn realists?

>>10
Realists are fucktards.

Humans are fucktards.

>>12
Humans are realists.

>>8
                  Look, Evolution is a great theory.  It works great for micorEvolution.  This means how a the bears cats and dogs come from the same family.  Even how reptiles and birds are related.  Even how a monkey becomes a person.  Where it failes is that these can all be seen to have taken little steps.  How does a single celled organism advance to a two celled organism to a three celled and so on in order to become a superadvanced life form such as a worm or a human being.  I am not saying that Evolution is wrong and creationism correct.  I don't believe in creationism myself.  So there would be no point.  All I am saying is that Pure Evolution has it's failures as well and you are putting your faith in a only partially developed theory.  Taking what you see and puting your faith that the rest is there as well.  It is really no different than someone just seeing the spots where it failes and throwing it all out.  It is all relying on faith.  You take comfort that they are wrong, just as they take comfort that you are wrong.  No big deal.  Athiests are not fuking realists.  Anybody that insists that their view has all the proof and all the others are wrong in situations like this are stupid.  Not the least problem is why does it mater.  Does knowing that we are or aren't decendants of monkeys change where we are now?  Than what is the point of the argument anyways.  And really, What is the point of gettting the argument into politics?  Does it help anyone to have this fight in politics. 

>>14
Not only do you have pretensions of being a thinker, but you don't know how to do even rudimentary research. Looky here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.htm

But I guess using google is a bit too much to ask, huh?

>>15
    can you point to something a bit more precice, both on the site and what I am being refuted on.  that is a substantially large site to search for something specific, and not organized for me to do so.  so please clarify.

>>15
        found macro-evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
    they are a speaking very limitedly on the subject.  in fact they include it in the what i called micro evolution:
<<14    "It works great for micorEvolution.  This means how a the bears cats and dogs come from the same family.  Even how reptiles and birds are related.  Even how a monkey becomes a person." 
However I was saying how does a one celled oraganism procede to a two, to a three, slowly over time.  This is not even touched in this article.  I need you to point to something more specific here.

>>14
Simple, it takes small steps. A single celled organism mutates so that it sticks to other organisms but allows a little space for sea water to circulate in the cluster. This means that cells inside are protected from the elements and the orgnaism doesn't have to spend so much energy on it's cell membrane. Every time a clump of this cluster of cells comes off the exposed cells die and create a barrier to protect the cells inside and cells which evolve the abilities to improve this process survive better.

Eventually the organism intentionally causes pieces of it to fall off by erecting them on storks, these pieces have very similiar genes and cooperate instead of compete. Etc etc...

>>14
I think you're making the assumption that athiests claim to have all the answers.  I don't know exactly what your prejudice is toward them, but very few athiests claim that they have all the corrects answers or that they know how everything in the world works.  An athiest is simply a person who does not believe in a god or any other supernatural beings.  They see religion for what is really is and choose not to buy into it.  That's all.  If athiests are somehow 'fucktards' for that then you can go suck a cock.  You're probably confusing athiests for 14 year old EMO-goths who just don't want to wake up early on Sunday.

>>19
        No actually I am sick of athiests that think that every single place the word god shows up it means fall down and pray for your own good.  The ten commandments in the court house, yes that goes too far.  in fron of high schools, yes too far.  "in god we trust" on the money, that is a bit far.  taking the word "god" out of the pledge of allegiance i don't give one damn about, and it wasn't really there to begin with anyways.  Taking god out of every single state constitution that has it, the national anthem, and anywhere else it happens to show up is just steralizing damn place for no particular reason.  I am agnostic, once athiest that has never been offended by the word god.  I grew up in a rural area, i know a force of it when i see it.  when the teacher asks us to pray before class, yes, too far.  when we ask for a moment of silence in memory of a dead classmate, no.  I have never been objected to the word god in every way shape and form.  that's why i really left athiesm, because most others don't have room for me not wanting that.  I would rather be considered a pessimist among the agnostic.

>>18
Congrats, you have defined Coral reef.  However you have not explained how organs and such develop.  symbiotic microorganisms are extreemly rare, but i know they do happen.  these organisms are sepparate entities.  they are genetically different and physically separate.  your analaysis is like saying that with the fish that attach to sharks and eat the parasites off of them will one day fuse with the shark and be one creature.  also the growth of these creatues into one, if it is possible would leave an increadible ammount of focilized evidence.  There is none indicating a complex symbiotic relationship between a pile of attached microrganisms along the lines of the complexity you described.

>>16
It seems the link I provided was broken (didn't have the last "l"). Let's try this again: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

On the topic of organs, here's a long list of creationist claims. You'll probably be interested in CB300-340: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

>>20
Only the stupid extremists object to seeing the word God in everyday life/court houses/ etc...  They're simply the noisy minority, just like the uber-liberal retards in california who think gays should have their own high schools.
So, rather than being a pompus dick head, lumping in everyone into one group, try to realize that for every annoying asshat there are probably 50 other people who aren't.

Taking god out of every single state constitution that has it, the national anthem, and anywhere else it happens to show up is just steralizing damn place for no particular reason.

The "particular reason" is that the national anthem is assuredly referring to a Christian God when America is supposed to be a place of all religions. It should be more open, depending on where you are, the national anthem should and shouldn't have God in it. That simple really.

Most people in the US believe in god. The US is a democracy, therefore god should remain on national anthem.

>>24

No. That is not democracy.

If they vote to keep it there, yes it is.

Nobody's voted on the issue yet though.

Niggers and jews with a cause

>>26

The constitution is pretty clear on this matter, so in the first place, it shouldn't even be brought to vote. It's not debatable. If the term God is taking to mean the singular God of any ONE particular faith then you are merging church and state. There is no way around this.

>>25
the us was founded on christian fundamentals. whether or not christianity is still practiced by a majority of the population, god should remain where he is. changing the antional anthem because some stupid fuck is offended by it is just stupid.

i never understood how people are offended by the mention of another god than the one they believe in, especially in a country that they are not originally from, and a country that was founded on christian fundamentals. so what if some other person believes that god is a floating #17 that lives in a tree? leave them the fuck alone.

>>29

The US was not founded on Christian Fundamentalism. If you can provide concrete, unadulterated evidence of this, then by all means. But nevertheless, The CONSTITUTION, the guiding document our country is extremely clear about this. God wasn't always in the currect national anthem and the current nationak anthem has not been around as long as the constitution so that idea that "God should remain where he is" (thrusted firmly in to lives of American who don't want him there) is 100% wrong no matter what you say.

I note that you continue to dodge the argument. Who cares what you think about God or the "stupid fucks" who are offended? THE CONSTITUTION isn't open to interpetation. There is a to a seperation between church and state, period.

The constitution is pretty clear on this matter, so in the first place, it shouldn't even be brought to vote.

If we really live in a democracy, anything can be brought to vote. Do you really think that it's impossible to have a plebiscite that will result in an amendment?

Ah, wait, I misread that. "shouldn't" != "couldn't"

>>23
      The national anther doesn't specifically refer to "the god of christ" which is the christian god.  and can therefore refer to the primary infallable being of any montheistic religion.  Just because the writter was a christian and that was the god he meant doesn't mean it can't equally apply to other faiths.  And on top of that it merely symbolic of being able to thank some higher power for watching over the United States and protecting her.
>>25
Democracy is, literally, rule by the people (from the Greek demos, "people," and kratos, "rule"). The methods by which this rule is exercised, and indeed the composition of "the people" are central to various definitions of democracy, but useful contrasts can be made with oligarchies and autocracies, where political authority is highly concentrated and not subject to meaningful control by the people. While the term democracy is often used in the context of a political state, the principles are also applicable to other areas of governance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

      In other words "majority rules" this means we have elections from time to time and those elections determine the how the nation is run for the next predetermined period of time.  Therefore if the people vote that god should be in a certain place than democracy dictates that he be there.  If the people decide vote that he shouldn't than he shouldn't--both for that predetermined period of time until the next open election.  Therefore it is the process that makes democracy, not the result.  As long as everyone is given the fair vote, such a thing can be forced in a democracy.  Constitutionally We have already determined that God is not to be there, but the Constitution is the growndwork for the American form of democracy and not democracy in general. 
>>28
   The constitution also states that it is designed to change to fit the future needs of the people and has the provisions for amendments right in it.  Therefore whe could make the nation a religios theocracy if there was enough political backing.  And in a true democracy anything SHOULD be able to be brought to a vote, regardless of what it is, so that the people can decide, put your faith in them to act properly, because thats where it belongs if you believe in democracy at all.
>>29
>>30
    Once again, what the nation was is not what it is today.  the founders meant for change to come and put in a process to facilitate that change.  They were christans, and refering primarially to the various forms of christianity when refering to freedom of religion, that doesn't mean it can't be equally applicable to other faiths.  Also you are confusing the national anthem with the Plege of Allegance.  the anthem words have always included god,  it's the pledge that was changed to include god.  Hell it didn't even include the words United States or America when it was first written  and the was only written in 1892, not that long ago.  "united States" was added in 1923, "America" was added in 1924, and "God" was added in 1954
source:
http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofheroes/1st_floor/flag/1bfc_pledge.html
       Also please realize that neither the plege nor the anthem have any legal binding, requred, or mandated.  They are legally recognized as the plege and anthem are simply recognized as what they are, which means absoluely nothing.  they are simply a moral support and binding and a symbol of our nation. Just like the Eagle is our national bird but it means nothing.  We also have a national flower, plant, exc, and all mean nothing.  If we can't have an anthem or a plege that mentions god, you would have to outlaw anything with god in our symbols.  I mean there is nobody forcing the song and plege down your throat to worship god, it is simply meant to bind people in the love of their nation.  All nations that I know of have a national Anthem.  most have a pledge of somekind.  All have some form of symbol they recognize just as we recognize the eagle as being our symbol.

>>4
True, I've always thought the most dangerous people in the U.S. weren't the members of the Bush Administration, but the rednecks in the South and people of their ilk that vote for him and still support him.

Sage for standard liberal vs. conservative whining.

If you consider this conversation absolutely vital to U.S. domestic interests, however...then by all means, continue pontificating about another rehashed issue thats already been beaten to death.