Bill Maher vs Poptart

[Van]

Pop, it doesn't matter. Soooo...whacked out desert crazies died during a particularly brutal time in whacked out crazy desert people history.

Okay. How they died or why they died only matters to the choir. It proves nothing to anybody else. Many people question whether they died, or whether they lived at all.

After all, who were they? They were people described in the bible. Believing what's in the bible just because it's in the bible doesn't fly for many people. Their stories and names might've all been changed by the authors, for any number of reasons. They may not have existed at all. Their whole story could just be made up, to help tell a story. I certainly don't believe their story to a stone cold certainty just because I read about them in the bible. The bible is so full of untruths that how is one to know which things to believe and which things to pass off as fable?

The whole thing reads like a fable, and it was written back when people believed laughably silly things.

Very hard to pick and choose there, but there's no way for a circumspect person to believe all of it, not literally. Once allowances for reality and literary license are made the whole thing is then cast into doubt.

[Dinsdale]

Much of the shit never happened and yet it makes up the backbone belief system of the planet's majority religion.

Thats a problem.

Van, if you wanna really have fun with this...

Ask these thumpers how many of them have followed the Word of the Lord, and killed their own disobedient children.

The bible is all too "real" to them, right up until the point they disagree with it.

The greatest argument against the validity of christianity is christians. If they don't actually believe their own User's Manual, why should anyone else?


And Van -- we've been through this with Pop before... he'll continue to quote the bible as evidence of the bible's validity. He reeeeeeallllllly doesn't get it. But he can't offer any other evidence, so he'll stick with it to the end times.

[Van]

Ask these thumpers how many of them have followed the Word of the Lord, and killed their own disobedient children.

I could believe Schmick would do it. Some day his kid won't be willing to dial up some chin music to the other team's best batter in a 22-0 blowout or maybe his poor kid dropped back into coverage when Schmick called a corner blitz. There Schmick will be, waiting for the kid back at their car after the game, scythe in hand...

[smackaholic]

When Maher and his ilk have the nuts to go after Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and the polytheistic pagan rituals, then "wake me up". Until then, he and everyone else who solely target Christianity as "fable" bore the fuck out of me.

Rack.

And why won't they go after Islam? Mainly because they are smart enough to know that if they step to Islam, they are likely to get their fukking domes lopped off by some nut. Also, it's a political thing. Their political enemies tend to be christians.

As for my own take on religion, I'm agnostic as well and really do detest much of the shit that is wrong with them, but, I do admit that over the ages they have been invaluable to developing civilizations. Take away religion and you pretty much have a brutal free for all.

I'd like to think that we have advanced to a point where we no longer need this religious safety net to keep society from crumbling, but, I kinda doubt it.

Too bad something that serves such a vital role has to be twisted by certain asshats to cause so much bad.

[poptart]

The whole thing reads like a fable, and it was written back when people believed laughably silly things.

You mean, unlike today, when people only believe SMART things?

Like when a man tells a throng of people that going a trillion-and-a-half dollars more into debt is the beginning of a paln to ... ERASE ... 5 tillion dollars from a deficit, and they beg for more of his cum?

haha

Ask these thumpers how many of them have followed the Word of the Lord, and killed their own disobedient children.

The bible is all too "real" to them, right up until the point they disagree with it.

The greatest argument against the validity of christianity is christians. If they don't actually believe their own User's Manual, why should anyone else?

When you go to Florida you don't pack your ski jacket.

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

If you had critical thinking abilities on a subject then we could argue further.

Critical thinking calls for a persistent effort to examine any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the evidence that supports it. Its scope is not limited to a certain subject on a message board. Either he has trained himself to think critically, i.e., being willing and able to evaluate and reassess his thinking, or he has not.

Props on taking a critical thinking 101 class before. Negative props on actually retaining any of its subject matter.

[poptart]

Besides, organized religion is one of the two or three most virulent plagues to ever attack mankind.

Your point is well taken, Van, although I don't know that I would be able to rank the virulent plagues that have attacked mankind.

Like ...

Top 3 most virulent plagues to ever attack mankind
3. Shirtless jtr pics seared into the memory bank
2. Guntlsingers Gone Wild
1. Annie coming up from the basement


Understand that Jesus didn't tell the disciples to receive the Holy Spirit and then go and ... start organized religion.

He told them to wait for the Holy Spirit and then go and make ... new disciples.

But MAN made the "organized religion" that you find so troubling.

For this reason, I tell people to look at CHRIST and not at Christians.

A lot of Christians are dipshits, as are a lot humans in general, regardless of what they believe.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Just yesterday the Pittsburgh School Board voted to drop the abstinence-only sex education plank of the Platform. What kind of nut job actually think that shrouding kids in ignorance will keep them from making foolish decisions with their genitals? Probably the same nut jobs that walked around today with some fucking ash smeared on their foreheads...

The Catholic Church is not perfect in that area, certainly. And if you know anything about the Church's history when it comes to reviewing artificial birth control, it's really a tragedy. The majority of cardinals who studied the issue actually argued that there was no moral issue with making artificial birth control available to married couples. Unfortunately, however, the Pope at the time, I believe it was Paul VI, disagreed.

Having said all of that, I believe the biggest advocates of abstinence-only sex education in public schools have been the fundies, not the Catholics.

[Terry in Crapchester]

While I was still in high school (a Catholic school, mind you) I figured out that organized religion was a horrible thing. No other force on earth causes more people worldwide to park their brains and turn over both their souls and their futures to self serving charlatans.

. . .

Besides, organized religion is one of the two or three most virulent plagues to ever attack mankind. It's a subject well worth discussing. It's a far more important subject than any other issue facing mankind.

I'd agree that organized religion has its problems. Historically, however, the Catholic Church has been a great boon for mankind.

In the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church was at the forefront of education. Even today, we have the Catholic Church to thank for many educational matters. Most if not all of what we know about Western history prior to about the 15th century A.D. is strictly the result of the efforts of the Catholic Church.

Analogies are always weak, but in the case of the Catholic Church, as I once heard someone else put it, it's similar to the leading scorer on a basketball team also having the most turnovers, or to the leading home run hitter on a baseball team also leading that team in strikeouts.

[Shoalzie]

Hell, I'm agnostic, so I don't know dick about having Big Picture answers. I just know lunacy when I see it and the bible is a seed of lunacy. Its practitioners and abusers sowed that seed into a worldwide conflagration of braindeadedness that's truly hard to fathom once you truly look at what billions of people have come to believe.

It's almost a contest of the absurd, trying to decide which organized religion is based on the more preposterous beliefs. Every time I think nothing could be more bat shit crazy than the Mormon religion here comes Scientology to top it. Think Judaism is just comical in its Orthodox beliefs? Check out some of the truly insane things Islam believes. When you're certain nothing could be crazier than Islam refer back to fundamentalist bible thumpers who take every word literally of what was obviously intended to be nothing more than a children's fable, written by and for truly ignorant people who believed the world was flat and giant man eating sea creatures roamed the seven seas.

I'm a fellow agnostic...which to me is fancy word for religious and spiritually undecided. Atheists are those convinced that all religion is a sham but they really don't have any proof of that. I'd never go to that extreme because I simply don't know nor do I feel anyone knows. I think the whole concept of why we're here or how the world was created is something so massive that no one can truly wrap their minds around it and give a definitive answer. We just have a bunch of theories on existence and different groups of people follow those different theories.

I'm not one that tries to shoot holes in other people's beliefs but I'm certainly curious to know why they seem so convinced that their faith is the way to go instead of another. I never was raised under a given faith nor was I required to attend service. I think it was left up to me for me to decide what way I wanted to think or believe. I think all people need to have is common sense and an open mind.

I have no clue what happens after I die nor do I have any idea how I or anyone else even got here. Those questions intrigue me but I don't pretend to have a strong belief that anyone here knows the answers to those questions. To me, they're probably left unanswered because if was ever proven that there isn't a higher being...I couldn't imagine how the religious crowd would receive that.

You just have to live a good, honest life and treat others well. I never needed the Bible or another religious text to tell me those things. I don't need to follow a figure like Jesus to know the difference between right and wrong. These are concepts all people should be able to figure out on on their own and decide on their own how to live their lives. You learn more lessons by just living your life than listening to something written 2000 years ago that might not even be true.

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

You just have to live a good, honest life, treat others well, and not fuck your cousins. I never needed the Bible or another religious text to tell me those things.

Fixed.


Sinner.

[Shoalzie]

You just have to live a good, honest life, treat others well, and not fuck your cousins. I never needed the Bible or another religious text to tell me those things.

Fixed.


Sinner.

Hey, at least I'm not a hypocrite of my own beliefs when I have no beliefs.

[Shoalzie]

Atheists are those convinced that all religion is a sham but they really don't have any proof of that.

I guess that is true. But an atheist isn't asking you to believe in something you cannot see, hear, touch, smell or taste, and something that has no mass, takes up no volume, cannot be detected in any way and is purportedly responsible for the creation of the entire universe and the management of every human being's day to day existence (i.e., the thing that kept you from being hit by the car that ran the red light, that caused your lottery ticket to be the winner and let you catch the game winning touchdown in the Super Bowl). An atheist has no obligation to make any proof. How could an atheist possibly prove that something that purportedly has no mass, takes up no volume and cannot be detected in any way does not exist?

I think with an atheist, they have as much of a leg to stand on as those who follow a given faith or at least acknowledge the existence of a god or higher being. You're essentially a check-and-balance to those on the other side while myself and other agnostics choose to not take a strong stand either way. I don't think you're any more right or wrong than those who do belief.

What I will say...as you brought up with the First Amendment...I defend everyone's right to belief or not belief in what they want. It's those that intrude on everyone else and try to brainwash or convince others that they're side is right...that's what I take objection to. You can discuss your views but you really shouldn't try to sway someone into believing what you believe...but that's the idea behind the concept of "spreading the gospel".

[smackaholic]

I think with an atheist, they have as much of a leg to stand on as those who follow a given faith or at least acknowledge the existence of a god or higher being. You're essentially a check-and-balance to those on the other side while myself and other agnostics choose to not take a strong stand either way. I don't think you're any more right or wrong than those who do belief.

What I will say...as you brought up with the First Amendment...I defend everyone's right to belief or not belief in what they want. It's those that intrude on everyone else and try to brainwash or convince others that they're side is right...that's what I take objection to. You can discuss your views but you really shouldn't try to sway someone into believing what you believe...but that's the idea behind the concept of "spreading the gospel".

Who are you to tell a thumper he doesn't have the right to try to sway a non believer. He does have that right, just as you have the right to tell said thumper to go fukk himself.

[Tom In VA]

Worthless pablum. Nobody's talking about quotients of "inner strength."

It's worthless to you because it doesn't fit your agenda. You asked about Poptart vs. Maher. I answered. Poptart's "bible" has done more for more people than Mahers utterings.

How the fuck do you know Maher is a tortured soul? Dude seems very functional and pretty damn happy to me. Why wouldn't he be? He's made millions doing the thing he loves. He's also secure enough in his beliefs (though he's agnostic) to go out there and subject himself to ridicule.

I didn't know you and he were pals. Everytime I see him, he's bellyaching about something or other. He's been victimized. Victimized by conservative government and victimized by organized religion. He can't sleep at night knowing that our cowardly airmen drop laser guided bombs on the heroic terrorists who at least have the balls to get up close and personal and slit your throat. Or detonate a bomb. I'm sure you two have a wonderfully charged conversation when you hang out.

Regardless, who cares? The point is the validity of his questioning of organized religions, including fundamental christianity. His observations and conclusions
are spot on.

Spot on in a carefully editted movie. I'm sure Maher wouldn't fare to well against say, George Washington, Thomas Aquinas, or even any of my professors / high school teachers. Fr. Doc was the real deal.

Trying to shoot the messenger won't change the correctness of his message.

Nor does crucifying Him.

[Tom In VA]

Rubbish. Atheism is fact based.

Well then, lay the facts out.


Just the Facts.

[Cuda]

I don't think I would "argue" with Bill Maher

Neither would I. What I'd do is kick that smarmy little fuck like a mule in the nuts and then drive his nose cartilage up into his sinus with my knee.

[Shoalzie]

Who are you to tell a thumper he doesn't have the right to try to sway a non believer. He does have that right, just as you have the right to tell said thumper to go fukk himself.

True...and usually the only ones that have tried to sway me or try to get me to attend service regularly have been good friends and I'll at least hear them out. I'm willing to listen to what they have to say but in my mind, I know I can't make that kind of a decision on the spot.

My thing is that I'm not going talk anyone out of their way of thinking so why should someone try to do it to me? I wouldn't stop others from doing it to other people...I was thinking in terms of me. I can't speak for others...and you feel those people have that right and you're correct that it isn't wrong to do.

However, I would equate it to anything else in life. Just look at homosexuality. Could a heterosexual person let a homosexual person just live their lives and not have to preach to them why their way of life is immoral or wrong and they couldn't just accept them for who they are as a person? I think those in the majority think those in the minority are out to sway their views or influence them to their side when it's really the other way around. Those who are considered "different" are just regular people trying to get by like everyone else.

If you're secure enough in your own beliefs, you shouldn't have to deal with someone else trying to tell you how to live or think another way. Call me a hippie but we're all different in our own way and it shouldn't be about convincing others that their way of thinking or their way of life doesn't fit some standard and they should have to change. Let everyone think for themselves and live their lives how they see fit.

[Cuda]

When friends or family tell me they're "worried about me" and/or that they "pray for me", that's cool. The fact that they express concern tells me they really care about me.

If you walk in and see this dude:

you're in for a rough time of it

This dude on the other hand:



... all it would take is a stern look and he'll sit and stare back at you like:

[Tom In VA]

There aren't any. If you believe something or vaguely accept the possibility of something in the complete absence of even the smallest scrap of evidence, you are an idiot.
Point blank.

Do you not trust yourself to recognize a work of fiction when you see it? Are you really that feeble?

We've discussed this before. Ad nauseum. With respect to this matter I can live with your conclusion that I am an idiot. When I look at the history of man I see that man has always turned it's eyes upward and all around as if some innate awareness is present within him. An awareness of some unseen power, some unseen force, some unseen entity that exists. I can't ignore that.

Spiritually speaking, yes I am feeble.

[Shoalzie]

What I always kind of shrug my shoulders at is the concept of praying for someone versus just saying 'I hope everything goes well'.

I've got a friend from work and his mother went in for some surgery today. I told him, 'I hope it goes well'. I don't see how that's any different than saying 'I'll pray for you and your mother'. I'm not looking for some higher power to protect his mom from the surgery going wrong. I could easily say 'I'm sure it'll go well' but I don't know who the doctor is or what might happen so you just say 'I hope it goes well'.

As an agnostic, I hope good things happen to those I care about but I know I have no power over it and I'm not convinced there is something up there calling the shots and control the fates of us all. My way of showing support is to just say 'I hope it goes well' or what have you. Is saying the I'd pray for them means I'm hoping that the big guy upstairs will allow it go well? I think the fate of someone has a lot to do with who might be involved or where or when it happens. I'm all about chance happenings versus fate or a predetermined destiny.

Just one of those things I question with the religious crowd...I never get an answer that convinces me of their side nor do I fight with them about it.

[JayDuck]

Atheism, indeed, is not faith based at all.

The people who claim that atheism requires belief in ANYTHING, don't understand the meaning of belief.

Believing in something and not believing something are not synonymous.

There is some confusion on the part of people that want to lump hardcore Dawrwinists/Evolutionists in with atheism, as thumpers like to try to make the extremely feeble & weakminded argument that belief in evolution is synonymous to religuous belief. However, even Darwinists/Evolutionists, don't need to rely on belief. They are relying on making the best educated guess that we can make with the limited, verifiable, facts that we have to go on.

However, its even entirely possible to not believe in evolution and still be an athiest.

You can simply not know how the fuck we got here, but as long as you realize that it wasn't "by magic", you're an atheist.
Many people claiming to be agnostics are this type of atheist, but call themselves agnostic so as to not get bible thumping tards riled up.

[Van]

Pop, I have no problem with the concept of Christ and people who worship in their own way. I don't believe what those people believe and I don't know whether Christ was truly who he was made out to be but I don't have a major problem with him and the people I mentioned.

My point is organized religion. If we're to believe what is written about Christ in the bible then Christ wouldn't have brooked all that shit that's been done in his name. He wouldn't have accepted the Vatican. He wouldn't have accepted all the wars and all the persecution in his name. He wouldn't have accepted so many people sitting in spiritual judgement of every person unlike themselves.

Organized religion has very little to do with Christ. True Christians don't need organized religion. Same deal with true believers in Islam. They don't need to fall in step with the charlatans running their religion.

Mvscal, don't be an idiot. You're going to try and make the same argument with me that AP made?? You mean to tell me that you can't see a difference between agnosticism and atheism, vis a vis Big Picture Questions vs obviously man made fables? You don't see where an agnostic could be uncertain as to basic questions of divinity while still being certain Jonah never lived inside a big fish and the story of Noah and his arc is pure rubbish?

I thought we raised you better than that.

And no, atheism isn't fact based. It's a belief system which is based on something lacking facts. The concept of god cannot satisfy 88's necessity for something measurable. The concept of god is that he's beyond our reckoning. He's not a Buick and he's not a force of nature.

Claiming to a certainty that you know something doesn't exist when it's something you couldn't begin to comprehend, much less measure, that's faith, not fact. I understand why a goodly percentage of scientists are in fact atheists, since their lives are based on the need for finding answers which they can suppport with facts. They can't do this with questions of divinity so, lacking any hard evidence, they conclude no such thing exists.

I understand it, but I know they only believe this, they don't know this. That means they merely have faith in atheism. They have no facts to prove it.

I'd also admit that I lean more towards atheism than divinity, if I were forced to choose. How could I not? There's far too much evidence of religion being nothing more than a man made political system.

Christ or God needs to come down and show themselves to me, in no uncertain terms, before I'll truly believe.

[Tom In VA]

Pop, I have no problem with the concept of Christ and people who worship in their own way. I don't believe what those people believe and I don't know whether Christ was truly who he was made out to be but I don't have a major problem with him and the people I mentioned.

My point is organized religion. If we're to believe what is written about Christ in the bible then Christ wouldn't have brooked all that shit that's been done in his name. He wouldn't have accepted the Vatican. He wouldn't have accepted all the wars and all the persecution in his name. He wouldn't have accepted so many people sitting in spiritual judgement of every person unlike themselves.

Organized religion has very little to do with Christ. True Christians don't need organized religion. Same deal with true believers in Islam. They don't need to fall in step with the charlatans running their religion.

Well put. However, presupposing God does exist. That God can carry out God's will in whichever manner that God chooses. If that includes nastiness and wrath filled acts, and it is truly of God, it is what it is. God, is not subject to the judgement of man.

[JayDuck]

And no, atheism isn't fact based. It's a belief system which is based on something lacking facts. The concept of god cannot satisfy 88's necessity for something measurable. The concept of god is that he's beyond our reckoning. He's not a Buick and he's not a force of nature.

Total bullshit. Atheism requires "belief" in the same bullshit way that you only "believe" that the sun is up. That you only believe you even exist at all and can't think yourself out of existance. You can't "prove" that I'm not in a coma and dreaming all of you fuckers up and that you aren't just a figment of my imagination. You only "believe" it. You can't "prove" that gravity won't stop working 10 years from now, so you only "believe" that gravity will work in the year 2019. You can't prove anything that you see touch hear or feel is reality, you only "believe" that it is. That's the only standard of "belief" that would classify Atheism as a "belief".

Actually requiring this absurd standard of "belief" requires an absurd belief system of its own, like Nihlism.

[Tom In VA]

You can't prove anything that you see touch hear or feel is reality, you only "believe" that it is.

So the experiences encountered by men subjected to sensory deprivation experiments aren't real, never happened ?

[JayDuck]

You can't prove anything that you see touch hear or feel is reality, you only "believe" that it is.

So the experiences encountered by men subjected to sensory deprivation experiments aren't real, never happened ?

You clearly don't understand the statement you are responding to, if you are offerring that up, or else you are actually trying to further argue my point for me.

[Van]

Fine, Tom. Let god mete out his judgements. Let god dole out his punishments. Mankind should not be torturing and slaughtering each other in his name, on the orders of god's church.

Man dictated that, solely to serve man's perverse self interests.

For the Crusades to've happened, for the Incan and Mayan bloodbaths to've happened, for modern fucking day Islamic Fundamentalism to've happened, something was seriously lost in the chain of command between god and his "servants."

Either that, or fuck god. If these things truly are god's doing and not merely mankind making horrific use of his own free will then god is one sick fuck. I'm not about to worship the celestial equivalent of the punk kid entertaining himself by burning ants with a magnifying glass...

[Tom In VA]

You can't prove anything that you see touch hear or feel is reality, you only "believe" that it is.

So the experiences encountered by men subjected to sensory deprivation experiments aren't real, never happened ?

You clearly don't understand the statement you are responding to

I did in fact misread it.

[Van]

You can't "prove" that I'm not in a coma

You're an Oregon fan so you may be that rare exception but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that using the meausrable definition of a coma that science has come to acknowledge as fact we can prove you're not in a coma. You have 88's measurables and those measurables do not fit within the accepted definition of a coma.

Those same scientists cannot prove god doesn't exist. In the overall span of things they've only been at this science game for a very short while. They also can't yet prove life doesn't exist in other portions of our universe to which their knowledge doesn't yet extend. It doesn't mean life doesn't exist there. Mankind's knowledge is still very limited. Science doesn't even begin to hold all the answers yet and they certainly cannot answer to a certitude any questions of spirituality. So, any claims they or any atheist makes is based on a belief in something they cannot prove, and that's the definition of faith.

[Tom In VA]

Either that, or fuck god. If these things truly are god's doing and not merely mankind making horrific use of his own free will then god is one sick fuck. I'm not about to worship the celestial equivalent of the punk kid entertaining himself by burning ants with a magnifying glass...

The concern is shared, however, like I said - presupposing a supreme being exists - that supreme being would not be hobbled by our rejection. Saying "Fuck God", "God your cruel", "God I can't believe in you because bad things happen in your name" is tantamount to beating your head against a brick wall until it's bloody and pulplike.

[Van]

An awareness of some unseen power, some unseen force, some unseen entity that exists. I can't ignore that.

It's called ignorance and, no, you shouldn't ignore it. Being curious apes, we have attempted to explain these things and these forces that we see at work around us. Some of those explanations appear comical several thousand years later.

Agreed.

[Van]

Either that, or fuck god. If these things truly are god's doing and not merely mankind making horrific use of his own free will then god is one sick fuck. I'm not about to worship the celestial equivalent of the punk kid entertaining himself by burning ants with a magnifying glass...

The concern is shared, however, like I said - presupposing a supreme being exists - that supreme being would not be hobbled by our rejection. Saying "Fuck God", "God your cruel", "God I can't believe in you because bad things happen in your name" is tantamount to beating your head against a brick wall until it's bloody and pulplike.

Or it's simply a rejection of god. It's a turning and walking away. If god then punishes me, so be it. I'm not about to worship such a god.

[JayDuck]

You can't "prove" that I'm not in a coma

So, any claims they or any atheist makes is based on a belief in something they cannot prove, and that's the definition of faith.

Once again, that is only using the nihlistic defition of the burden of proof. By which, any claims that anyone ever makes cannot ever be truly proved.

[Tom In VA]

It's called ignorance and, no, you shouldn't ignore it. Being curious apes, we have attempted to explain these things and these forces that we see at work around us. Some of those explanations appear comical several thousand years later.

Okay. So we changed words - the symbols - used to represent that which we have observed over time. There's no question that as nature reveals her secrets to us, our knowledge has evolved. I just don't see where that knowledge points to a lack of a supreme being. In fact as the intricacies of life and the world around us are explained so too is my awe for God and His creation.

[Tom In VA]

I just don't see where that knowledge points to a lack of a supreme being.

You are exactly backwards.

Unless that is just calling me "backwards". You're going to have to elaborate a bit if you don't mind.

[smackaholic]

There aren't any. If you believe something or vaguely accept the possibility of something in the complete absence of even the smallest scrap of evidence, you are an idiot.
Point blank.

Do you not trust yourself to recognize a work of fiction when you see it? Are you really that feeble?

We've discussed this before. Ad nauseum. With respect to this matter I can live with your conclusion that I am an idiot. When I look at the history of man I see that man has always turned it's eyes upward and all around as if some innate awareness is present within him. An awareness of some unseen power, some unseen force, some unseen entity that exists. I can't ignore that.

Spiritually speaking, yes I am feeble.

Tom, I think you confuse awareness with hope.

[Van]

No, Mvscal, I'm not agnostic in regards to Zeus or the Easter Bunny. My knowledge of those subjects and how they came into being allows me to understand to a certitude that they in fact are not real.

The basic concept of divinity is not a subject about which I have any equivalent knowledge. No one does, including you. You can stamp your feet and say all the evidence supports the idea that there is no such thing as god and that man created god, not the other way around...and I would wholeheartedly agree with you. This is what the evidence would indicate.

This doesn't mean that it still couldn't turn out that he exists.

You're as certain as you are about this subject because of what very little you know about the subject. Were new information to come to you, say, this afternoon, or three thousand years from now, your certitude would change. Had you lived in Christ's time you also would've been dead nuts certain that the world was flat. You would've considered it fact, not faith, and you would've been wrong both in your definition and your belief. You wouldn't have lived long enough to discover your error but you still were wrong.

This same scenario is quite possible where the existence of god is concerned. Nothing in our limited knowledge can absolutely preclude it.

[Van]

For the Crusades to've happened,

The Crusades were a predictable and logical response to Muslim aggression.

Fine. I already included Islam in my list of instances where the message better have gotten lost between god and those self appointed servants of his.

The entire history of organized religion is one long broken record of self serving barbarism carried out in the name of god. Islam is certainly not excluded form this, any more than Christianity. Islam is simply still stuck on stupid.

[Tom In VA]

The entire history of man is one long broken record of self serving barbarism carried out.

FTFY