Comments for Waiting for Cupid

Comment on When Atheists Attack by barb michelen

barb michelen — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 21:00:00 +0000

Hello I just entered before I have to leave to the airport, it's been very nice to meet you, if you want here is the site I told you about where I type some stuff and make good money (I work from home): here it is

Comment on When Atheists Attack by Darwin's Dagger

Darwin's Dagger — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 11:57:00 +0000

Darwin's Dagger: No Homers

Comment on A Letter to an Atheist – PART II: Can We be Good without God? by Ungodly Cynic

Ungodly Cynic — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 23:15:00 +0000

Also, thanks for not screening comments. I hate that.

Comment on A Letter to an Atheist – PART II: Can We be Good without God? by Ungodly Cynic

Ungodly Cynic — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 23:14:00 +0000

archangel, I applaud divergent view points.

Where I put my foot down is prosyletization and trying to shove ones beliefs down another's throat. And persecution (either overtly or subtly) of individuals who don't "buy" it.

Granted, as of yet, I have not seen any of that on your blog. You simply express your views on the matter.

So, in order to feel you out, I propose a litmus test of sorts.

1) Do you think that religious teaching has no place in public education? Not religious studies, but teachings found in many "charter" schools and madras'.

2) Do you think it improper for politicians to invoke their deity and their faith in their deity to get elected? No, scratch that "to get elected", how about...anytime.

3) Do you think that religious organizations should lose their tax-exempt status and/or face legal fines and penalties if they either 1) accept federal tax dollars and 2) preach politics from the pulpit?

4) Do you think that an atheist or secular humanist is just as capable of holding public office as the next guy?

I wish I could think up some more but these are some of the main issues that concern me. Not some vague "outside" influence on humanity.

And, maybe this litmus test could provoke some talking points. I'd like that.

As it is plain as day, if you answered yes to all of these questions then we are well on the same page.

Comment on When Atheists Attack by The Barefoot Bum

The Barefoot Bum — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 23:06:00 +0000

Come down off the cross: We need the wood.

Comment on When Atheists Attack by Is a Bell

Is a Bell — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 17:23:00 +0000

Go finger urself u slut

Comment on When Atheists Attack by Fanny

Fanny — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 14:41:00 +0000

V l-w c- i loved the part on the justified text. Loving your analysis.
I wonder why ADD’s keeping quiet on this.

Comment on A Letter to an Atheist – PART II: Can We be Good without God? by Ungodly Cynic

Ungodly Cynic — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 22:36:00 +0000

I believe that the whole creation idea, especially the Christian one; is all a lie…one, and two, has driven people to believe in some odd-ball notion of morality disguised in greed. As an example let’s look to some Native American cultures, whereby the concept of personal property was non-existent. Where does the right and wrong notion of thievery apply here? Huh? It doesn’t. Personal property belonged to the whole of the tribe (I know, a horrendous thought to most everybody). It was a communal society more suited for sustained survival than the Anglo-Christian one. Native Americans (and other indigenous peoples like the Celts and Gauls) were more tuned to the earth; to sustainability. Yet, what happened to them. They were conquered by a power much stronger. Is this survival of the fittest? Or destruction of the whole?

Comment on A Letter to an Atheist – PART II: Can We be Good without God? by Ungodly Cynic

Ungodly Cynic — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 21:20:00 +0000

Rereading some comments. “external source” keeps cropping up. Could this source possibly be…money…wealth?

Comment on A Letter to an Atheist – PART II: Can We be Good without God? by Ungodly Cynic

Ungodly Cynic — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 21:18:00 +0000

I might disagree with the morality/survival argument. Does anyone here truly believe that we're not destroying the planet? Where's our sense of right and wrong in this regard?

Also, we enable the confinement and torture of animals in order to satiate an irrelevant industry that has lied to the public and manipulated the government. You know, the so-called "food pyramid". Human beings are not a species that requires the consumption of meat, and we are the only species on the earth that makes a choice to consume milk into adulthood.

People also turn a blind eye to animal testing all in the name of protecting the consumer. Yeah, right, more like protecting industry from lawsuits by making sure products are safe.

We all know poverty is directly tied to crime, "a simple google search" will attest to that. Where the hell is morality on this issue? We allow the spending of half a trillion dollars on a war, the end result of which can never be moral or just. Couldn't we have spent that money on a mission to end poverty? Where is the outcry? The uproar?

Simple, morality has little to do with survival of the species. Survival of the species has mostly everything to do with the ability to procreate. By which I mean providing an environment in a society whereby it is safe, conducive and comfortable to do so. As population on the planet grows, this environment will become evermore fractured as resources become more scarce; water is one we need to look out for. We can survive without oil, albeit archaically...

This comment is growing long and I see I simply need to post it in my blog.

Thanks for reading (LOL, I like that), I welcome your comments there at ungodlycynic.blogspot