We don’t hate Christians, although I realise that you need us to, so that you can feel that (self)righteous persecution that you seem to love so much.

If anything, we feel sorry for you, wrapped up in your delusions as you are – although I know that this sounds almost as patronising as your declaration that you will love and pray for all us evil atheists.

You know, I almost wish that you will never wake up from your magic fantasy world – imagine the humiliation of realising that you have spent your life believing ludicrous nonsense. If you ever do, I hope you can handle it with the honesty, grace and intelligence that Rechelle has shown.

@Mom: you should read up on the Pledge of Allegiance. Quite an interesting little history it has there. Google for photos of the Bellamy Salute (aka Nazi salute) which was compulsory when reciting the Pledge, and read up on the late addition of “under God” during (if I remember correctly) the McCarthy era, thanks to the single-handed influence of the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic organization. The original pledge was written by a Socialist Baptist, and was actually very very short and to the point, and, interestingly enough, had nothing at all to do with anyone’s god. Why did he write it? It was part of a flag-marketing campaign. They were (still are) selling nationalism.

Compulsory recitation of the pledge has been, by turns, thought to be and officially found unconstitutional a number of times in its history.

Little side note here: most Europeans find group recitation of the Pledge in schools to be a perfect illustration of the outrageous conservative/religious brainwashing Americans love to accept in their lives.

only if you’re doing it wrong. a valid explanation must account for all the facts and evidence, and do so in a way that others can look at the evidence and the facts and check whether your conclusion is merited; and a newly introduced explanation must account for all the facts and evidence the old idea explained and do so better, more accurately, more completely; if it doesn’t it mustn’t be accepted.

cherry-picking evidence for your pet-idea is always wrong. claiming that some subjective, unverifiable experience must be accepted at face-value is special pleading, and also wrong.

follow the evidence: the independently confirmable evicence; ALL the independently confirmable evidence. everything else is intellectual dishonesty.

Okay, maybe it’s just me.

And sure, for anyone who cares: while I don’t generally self-identify as an atheist – “militant agnostic” might be more accurate – I’m certainly not a Christian, and I have a happy, fulfilling life. I mention this only because I do run into a fair amount of (self-identified) Christians who think that such an existence is impossible. Most of the folks who have posted here are more accepting, and I appreciate that – I know you’re out there, but some days it’s nice to be reminded.

Could it be that you are experiencing sickness because some of the conversation (which you are choosing to characterize as “angry rants”) is beginning to make sense to you? Just a thought. …