An agnostic believes in nothing and doesn’t have a girlfriend.

Just following your logic. :)

Guardian on July 5, 2007 at 4:49 PM

Actually, I think the logic is that the agnostic is

certain

of nothing and has no girlfriend.

Esthier on July 5, 2007 at 4:58 PM

Can I hold your coat?

profitsbeard on July 5, 2007 at 5:09 PM

It’s a little warm here for coats. But your definition sounds about right. I’ve even heard of some who claimed to be Christian agnostics, believing in Christianity but not being certain that it is correct.

Now, I am prepared to stipulate that in Hitler’s case, his dogma was nationalistic and sociolistic, not religious, but he was not an Atheist. He was one of yours!

JayHaw Phrenzie on July 5, 2007 at 5:11 PM

Did you miss the part where I said many have argued that Hitler wasn’t an atheist?

Do you get those sort of blinding headaches when you’re angry that make it difficult for you to read a computer screen?

Hitler was a bad guy alright, but his death toll doesn’t even compare to Stalin, so I can’t understand why you’d rail against the assertion that Hitler was an atheist as though that somehow makes others forget that atheists still have the biggest death toll numbers.

From Wiki (did you not read the whole thing, or do you really believe one must only be born to Christian to be a Christian?????):

Hitler was raised by Roman Catholic parents, but as a school boy he rejected Catholicism and was influenced by nationalism. Apparently, after Hitler left home, he never attended Mass or received the sacraments.[66]
In later life, Hitler’s religious beliefs present a discrepant picture; publicly he often spoke positively of the Christian heritage of German culture and of belief in Christ. Hitler’s private statements, as reported by his intimates, are more mixed, showing Hitler as a religious man but also critical of Christianity.[67]

In the psycho’s own words:

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of human failure.

The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. Bolshevism practices a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them. In the ancient world, the relations between men and gods were founded on an instinctive respect. It was a world enlightened by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Its keynote is intolerance.

To make death easier for people, the Church holds out to them the bait of a better world. We, for our part, confine ourselves to asking man to fashion his life worthily. For this, it is sufficient for him to conform to the laws of nature. Let’s seek inspiration in these principles, and in the long run we’ll triumph over religion.

But Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery. A n*gger with his taboos is crushingly superior to the human being who seriously believes in transubstantiation.

So it’s not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble.

Christianity, of course, has reached the peak of absurdity in this respect. And that’s why one day its structure will collapse.

It’s Christianity that’s the liar. It’s in perpetual conflict with itself.

and the only way of getting rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.

When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let’s be the only Folk who are immunized against the disease.

He kinda sounds like you in that last one….

As I said before, his atheism is called into question, but when you read his own words, it’s impossible to see him as a Christian.

Esthier on July 5, 2007 at 5:31 PM

He believed in Adolf.

Nothing else.

profitsbeard on July 5, 2007 at 5:19 PM

Exactly.

Esthier on July 5, 2007 at 5:33 PM

Where in blazes did that come from, Jayhaw? “Cult” versus “Religion”? Totally irrelevant in the context of your argument with Esthier.

Much of what Jayhaw has said has been irrelevant, but that’s what happens when an idea or thing sparks as much disdain inside a person as religion does for Jayhaw.

Agreed, but the only two arguments that Christian Theists on this site have can be boiled down to two points:

1) But the bible says so!
2) Hitler was an Atheist

That’s completely false, and your second point completely ignores everything I wrote above, as though you simply couldn’t come up with a decent response.

I actually agree that his religion was Nationalism.

I was countering esthiers attempt to end the argument in an edwardsian way with a false call to civility tather than an ability to win the debate.

No, not at all. I did not get into a debate with you, I merely pointed out that your knee-jerk reaction to Christianity is to engage in nothing but insults, even when there is no reason to even talk about Christians.

We were not in any debate whatsoever. The entire conversation we’ve had is me explaining that it’s pathetic to always insult religion and you responding by insulting religion.

As I’ve said repeatedly, I don’t care if you respect me, I just think your responses are something to be pitied. In fact, that’s almost word for word what I said.

As an American, I will fight for the death for your right to worship the delusion of your choice, but I will retain the right to think less of you for doing so. And I will absolutely retain the right to express my opinion.

Again, something I never argued against. To paraphrase Blair, your since of injustice is off base.

Elizibeth Edwards will not shut up Ann Coulter with false calls for civility and poster “esthier” will not shut out my opinion by using the same pathetic tactic.

You dare compare yourself to Ann Coulter (a woman who shares the “delusion” you so disdain) because I made fun of your knee-jerk reaction? You’ve lost a little bit of reality with that one.

1. I have not asked you to stop. I’ve only said your insults are childish, irrelevant and useless.
2. We were not engaged in any debate and when I refuted what you cherry picked from wikipedia, you’re the one that ignored the facts.
3. When Ann Coulter insults a person or idea, it’s to make a legitimate point. You did no such thing and with your continued whining about free speech and thought, which no one is arguing against might I add, you’re only embarrassing yourself.

I have no problem with atheists. I even have no problem with atheists who think people who believe in God are delusional. I’d rather die than live in a world where people like that cannot exist.

In fact, I married a man who acted as such. He would taunt me and other Christians, tying many of us in logical knots. He had a field day with it and could run circles around most of the Christians who didn’t know their own theology as well as they should have.

Except, he was always intelligent enough to do it without being immature.

The name-calling and insipid insults are, as I’ve stated repeatedly, are childish and pitiful. Those who cannot speak on matters, even ones they think are stupid and/or full of delusions, without relying completely on the above tactics, are not people who can debate.

Esthier on July 5, 2007 at 8:59 PM