ConHunter wrote:http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2008/02/25/values/doc47c300c381587823189006.txt

Your .txt link is too suspicious for me too open. But fine whatever, let em' I don't care. They aren't hurting me, Eyas a fellow member here I think is Atheist. Hes actually a really great person, I respect a lot too.

ConHunter wrote:http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2008/02/25/values/doc47c300c381587823189006.txt

Numbers blah, blah, blah:

Barna has this to say:
85% of Americans self-identify as Christians. (2002)
7% of US adults classify as evangelicals (2004) (see Evangelical category for more information)
38% of US adults classify as born again, but not evangelical. (2004)
37% are self-described Christians but are neither evangelical nor born again
Atheists and agnostics comprise 12% of adults nationwide. (2004)
11% of the US population identify with a faith other than Christianity (2004)

God gave free will, so we can be our own god- see Humanism.
It's not about strength or numbers, but faith. It takes faith to believe in Man or God.
In the end, the importance is in whom your faith is placed.

Taylor wrote:

ConHunter wrote:http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2008/02/25/values/doc47c300c381587823189006.txt

Your .txt link is too suspicious for me too open. But fine whatever, let em' I don't care. They aren't hurting me, Eyas a fellow member here I think is Atheist. Hes actually a really great person, I respect a lot too.

Wow, Taylor, I don't know what I did to make you think so highly of me; but thanks.

Anyway, I'm an atheist, but I don't like to lump myself in with other atheists; especially the growing numbers of atheists in this country.  People like Christopher Hitchens who likes to accuse religious people of being mentally or emotionally handicapped and needing the "crutch" of religion to get through their lives, and then goes around trying to kick the "crutches" out from under people.  What a douchebag!

I also don't want to be associated with that clown in California (or is it Washington?) who wanted to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of allegiance.

For the most part, atheists fall into 2 categories:
1. Petulant ex-Catholics with "Daddy-issues"; OR
2. Effete, elitist snobs who consider atheism a badge of their "inherent" superiority over the blue-collar crowd.

I've never had any problem with any religion -- until recently, as I started learning more about Islam.  I've got a big problem with Islam.


But anyone here who wants to slam atheists in general should feel free to do so, I won't be offended, and may even agree.  So, cut loose.

Barna has this to say:
85% of Americans self-identify as Christians. (2002)
7% of US adults classify as evangelicals (2004) (see Evangelical category for more information)
38% of US adults classify as born again, but not evangelical. (2004)
37% are self-described Christians but are neither evangelical nor born again
Atheists and agnostics comprise 12% of adults nationwide. (2004)
11% of the US population identify with a faith other than Christianity (2004)

That second number is quite curious since tens of million Americans are members of denominations that are members of the National Association of Evangelicals.  And that doesn't count Southern Baptists who, as a denomination, are NOT a member of the NAE.  

Barna is a generally reliable group when it comes to counting heads.  I wonder how they arrived at that number?

paleocon wrote:

Barna has this to say:
85% of Americans self-identify as Christians. (2002)
7% of US adults classify as evangelicals (2004) (see Evangelical category for more information)
38% of US adults classify as born again, but not evangelical. (2004)
37% are self-described Christians but are neither evangelical nor born again
Atheists and agnostics comprise 12% of adults nationwide. (2004)
11% of the US population identify with a faith other than Christianity (2004)

That second number is quite curious since tens of million Americans are members of denominations that are members of the National Association of Evangelicals.  And that doesn't count Southern Baptists who, as a denomination, are NOT a member of the NAE.  

Barna is a generally reliable group when it comes to counting heads.  I wonder how they arrived at that number?

They probably asked the question:  "Are you a member of any denomination or church?"  If people said "no," then they listed them as an atheist.

I am a Christian who does not like organized religion because of some experiences I've had.  I do not belong to a church and do not attend services.  I am not an atheist but I'll bet I would have been included in their atheist group.  It's all in the question and how it's asked.

I have a huge problem with Islam, it has more lies, than anyone claims Christianity has. The religion of peace has killed over 10,600 people..

Who has ever given the democrats the right to distort and recalculate the truth about everything that has happened in the past?  None of them have ever shown the same principles, this meaning the recent Billy Bob-ists, that our country did when it wasn't eating itself alive.  This meaning, consequentially, after the most recent World War.  President Kennedy was against Communism and was all for containment.  These Billy Bob-ists get it wrong every time.  Who said revolution in special terms was ever a democratic ideal.  It never was.  The French Revolution was a Conservative Revolution.  Democrats want bigger gov't and to sit on their laurels.  The French Revolution, as defined, was a civil revolution for the people and a much larger thing...Louis and Marie were running up the bills, while the people were refusing to eat.  This, because they obviously did not have a dustbowl like the greater Midwest a long time ago - like 70 YEARS AGO.  These democrats continuously speak for revolution, when they have never been part of one of any importance, with the exception of RED OKTUBRE in 1917.  IF the French wanted to grow food, they would have.  None of them starved for Louis, that is for sure.  They had no money, and no way to get the fair treatment they deserved.  It wasn't about taxes, so far as they needed money.  They got rid of Louis because of the treatment that they didn't want.  NO, they saw the future with Louis in office, and found that they would be on the opposite side of a now empowered America.  Louis was an idiot, and anyone espousing the antics of this idiot for a democratic or liberal revolution is an idiot.  They're just espousing the virtues of the communist manifesto under the guise of "French Freedom", or "French Fries" as I like to call it.  Freedom for my people, not larger government and less freedom.

I am not sure I follow your post.  Could you clarify what you mean by "the French Revolution was a Conservative Revolution"?  

Also, try using paragraphs to break up your main points.  We have been using this simple and effective communications tool for centuries now and I believe the paragraph has demonstrated remarkable value especially considering the relative cost.

Sorry, when formatting posts I try to keep them as simple as possible, especially considering the paragraph.  None, usually, but from now on, I will.  Thank you for pointing this out.  

As to the French Revolution, conservative it was.  When you look at the fact that the French state, how remarkably liberal they have been throughout history, the Revolution was very conservative.  Not only do you have the Paris establishment fearing for their lives because of heavy taxation and the usurpation of the Girondins, Jacobins, and what some like to term, "the mountain", for the betterment of the nation.  There was also supposed "starvation".  Considering planning for these years to have food is not the governments prerogative, it is loosely based upon the basic maxim of supply/demand, that all of the people complaining that they don't have enough food because of the monetary/taxation system doesn't explain why they didn't plant more seeds.  Now, based upon time-lag/alternative means for consumption, these people starved themselves.  It was largely a hunger strike that was aimed at a complementary injustice - the fact that these people had seen freedom in the states and were no longer privy towards a feudal aristocracy/ancien regime.  

Now, pointing out that Republicanism is the basing ideology for freedom in the world throughout, and the ideas contained herein, including the remarkable presence of a revolt for the people and by the people to overthrow the reign of Louis XVI, the fact that these people went on a hunger strike of sorts is surely by theory and by fact, a very accurate point of view.  Although the books state that people starved by virtue of not having money, again supply/demand and the fact that the entire country was fertile during these years, promotes the idea that food, if needed, would be available - either from the surrounding areas of Paris and the country at large, or across borders, from the areas of Alsace and the Lorraine, to the Tyrolian Alps, to the Spanish outlying areas, across southern France.  

Edmund Burke, the leading observer of this Revolution, came from a viewpoint that was very conservative, and showed that these peoples of France, for worse or not, wanted the freedoms that were granted to us by such documents as the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, the two of which are cornerstones to the Republican ideal - government by the people and for the people.

Now ask yourself what you believe - whether or not Louis the philanderer was overthrown because of his use of the French Royal horde of taxed monies, or rather, was characterized by the people as one of the last pre-modern tyrannies that were overthrown because of the principles and ideologies of the "Reign".