It's not like that subject is seriously being considered in our country (a huge amount of our population belongs to some form of religion).

Of course, I belong to the Church of the Subgenious, so you probably won't like my opinions of religion.

i truthfully dont believe in any religion of any kind u can call me an atheist or h/e u spell it but that also dosnt mean that i think we have frozen souls in our bodys (lol)i have worked up an almost flualess defense for a debate like this and unless the god/goddess f your religion acually speaks/contacts me only then will i belive but the chance of that or 0 lol

"One cannot move a stone with words alone."

That's why they invented dynamite.

You should have brought in the big guns with "what the hell is 'your type of people' supposed to mean? Isn't that the same language frequently related with RACISTS....bitch?"

You get all upset over this, a mere debate topic, yet in many states of America Atheists can't hold public office or testify in court.

See how there's a difference?

Quite frankly, Atheists have infinitely more to be "Mildly Annoyed" about.

In Arkanas, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Texas, and Many others, one must profess belief in god to be able to testify in court or to hold public office.
Atheists aren't allowed to join the Boy scouts, a government funded organization, and are allowed the use public land for their operations.

And here you are getting annoyed over a debate topic that means nothing.

A nation isn't a democracy if they bar people from serving in government based on their personal views or attitudes.

If I was debating her, and she said "So is religion". I'd say, "So are half the ideologies in the world. So are half the dreams and aspirations that human beings have, but to deny people their vision and their dreams because you don't believe in them is a crime against democracy. If we are to say that a man is unfit to lead because he believes differently than the established government, than how are we any better than the nation that denies democracy altogether"

Actually, I think you could, since she implicitly used that fantasticly-stupid-that-was-proven-fa lse-thousands-of-years-ago-by-the-gre eks ad-hominem argument that completly missed the point and you should have immediatly countered by pointing that out.

Instead off adressing the issues you raised and countering your reply (which, by the way, was incomplete, as should have explained why her first reply was illogical), she merely used one of the most fantasticly stupid ad-hominen arguments ever.

She basicly was trying to say: religion is illogical and ironic, thus people who belive in religion are illogical and ironic and thus any argument that you make is illogical and stupid.

Here's the play by play of pointing where she's wrong:

- She's making a very strong hipotheses that religion is ironic and illogical, which alone could be argued, but it's not really necessary.

- She is then implicitly making the completly illogical argument that belive who belive in things that are illogical and ironic are necessarily illogical and ironic. That's simply not logical. You could perfectly reason that makes pretty much everyone in the human race illogical, just selecting a few examples of supersticion or illogical reasoning that everyone commits all the time. You could have again debated her on this, but the next point is the killer.

- She then, again, used implicitly that god-dammed ad-hominem argument of saying that because you are illogical and ironic your statements are worthless. Thats. Simply. WRONG. Always attack ad-hominem arguments. They should never, ever be used in a logical debate.

Btw, I may be wrong, but isn't the point of debate clubs to discuss polemic things? So as to increase the debating skills of their participants? In that case, I actually disagree with you that the subject was a bad one.

If, on the other hand, it's to seriously discuss things the interest of participants, then obviously it was a poor subject to debate for the very reasons you presented.

And if you reply, please leave a message on my user page, else I might not check back on your page. Thanks.

At Feb. 22, 2008 | 11:13 AM, Vert said:

: ...since she implicitly used that fantasticly-stupid argument...

: ...making a very strong hipotheses

Not to detract from your argument in any way, but LOL WUT.

So are you a member of an organized religion, and therefore offended?

This post is oooollddd.

You honestly could have won, by pointing out that all people are evolved roughly equally and religion is merely a personal belief and normally doesn't effect your ability to lead. I also be shocked by the lack of reaction from the topic by others, but I am no longer surprised by the average persons ignorance and naivety.

Is your username from that one Splinter Cell: Pandora Tommarow mission?

People are usually mad at the demon they see in themselfs, but today's people are too self centered to admit to it.

So they blame it on others. An elitist world we live in.