“ist” is simply a suffix of a noun that describes someone who does something with that noun. Someone who plays a piano becomes a “pianist”. That’s not a negative thing at all any more than an anaethesiologist , columnist, or cyclist is negative.
Of course, atheist is also an “ist” word.
Forgot about those. 
One track mind…
Borrowed the opening line from Hitchens, God is not Great and borrowed other parts from the Bible, which was done liberally for the Koran. Worked for Islam so why not?
Found some great racist lines in the Book of Mormans, that is until there was yet another revelation in 1975 that revealed to them that blacks were acceptable persons after all. Funny thing about Mr. Smith. He too was illiterate but received gods instructions; wrote them down and then these books flew up to heaven so no one could ever see them. No witnesses either. All this months after he was jailed and released for fraud and impersonation.
Yup, old Joe Smith gets caught by his wife, boinking the teenage housemaid, convenes with 'God" and after convincing the other elders they too get to play along and presto, polygamy is born and becomes one of their fundamentalist beliefs. Gotta love this religion, where do I sign up…ooops, shit I can barely afford the one wife I have now.
Wow, i just read my Mexican forum and GOD is actually talking to everyone on the forum personally! It has half of the community amazed and the good Catholics assured, thought you might want to read GOD’s own personal blog. LOL godgodgod.net/?cat=8
Which brought me to the conclusion that anyone who says God or an angel spoke to them is bat-shit crazy.
Our poll seems to agree with this study. Note the poll on the right showing two-thirds not religious.
The BBC reports that scientists have determined that religion will become extinct in nine countries, based on a mathematical model that attempts to account for the interplay between the number of religious respondents and the social motives behind being religious. The nine countries that may become free from religion include:
Australia,
Austria,
Canada,
the Czech Republic,
Finland,
Ireland,
the Netherlands,
New Zealand, and
Switzerland.
The paper, written by Daniel M. Abrams, Haley A. Yaple, and Richard J. Wiener and listed at Cornell University Library, is titled A mathematical model of social group competition with application to the growth of religious non-affiliation. It was last revised in January 2011. The work was funded by Northwestern University and The James S. McDonnell Foundation. P. Zuckerman provided the authors with "useful correspondence."
The formula underlying the study draws on the perceived individual value or utility of belonging to a societal group that has an overall majority; i.e., religion. The authors report that “In a modern secular society there are many opportunities for out-group connections to form due to the prevalence of socially integrated institutions|schools, workplaces, recreational clubs, etc.”
When I have the chance to go down to the waterfront and see the beautiful mountains , eagles fly and have some individual to talk with . I thank God for painting that beautiful masterpiece we have to look upon.
You mean the eagles that are descendants of the dinosaurs?
I am attaching a letter regarding evolution and its response from Dr ed Neeland a chemistry professor at ubco .
What bothers me about “scientists” like Dr Neeland is not that he opposes evolution. Many scientists will oppose theories. That is what makes science so convincing. One guy suggests something. Other guys are unconvinced so people keep working at it.
Maybe evolution is weak. Maybe we don’t understand everything about it.
But Dr Neeland - a scientist! - offers nothing in the way of proof for a god who created the universe and the life upon this earth. Where is his evidence?
Sorry Cutter. Maybe evolution is a weak argument. Maybe the big bang is a weak argument. But I will tell you this. There is not a shred of evidence outside of the fact that we are here and some guy 3000 years ago wrote a story trying to explain our existence to suggest that a god is responsible.
And for a scientist like Dr. Neeland to suggest “if not this, then it must be that 'cause I read it in the Bible” is ridiculous.
[quote=“DWhite”]What bothers me about “scientists” like Dr Neeland is not that he opposes evolution. Many scientists will oppose theories. That is what makes science so convincing. One guy suggests something. Other guys are unconvinced so people keep working at it.
Maybe evolution is weak. Maybe we don’t understand everything about it.
But Dr Neeland - a scientist! - offers nothing in the way of proof for a god who created the universe and the life upon this earth. Where is his evidence?
Sorry Cutter. Maybe evolution is a weak argument. Maybe the big bang is a weak argument. But I will tell you this. There is not a shred of evidence outside of the fact that we are here and some guy 3000 years ago wrote a story trying to explain our existence to suggest that a god is responsible.
And for a scientist like Dr. Neeland to suggest “if not this, then it must be that 'cause I read it in the Bible” is ridiculous.[/quote]
I forgot to add my point when I posted that link. Some people have suggested that you have to be stupid or uneducated to believe in god yet here is one example of a highly educated man saying the theory of evolution is weak and he believes in god. Further to Dr Neeland . Dr Zakir naik makes some strong arguments for his religion (islam) against other beliefs
[quote=“cutter”]
[quote=“DWhite”]What bothers me about “scientists” like Dr Neeland is not that he opposes evolution. Many scientists will oppose theories. That is what makes science so convincing. One guy suggests something. Other guys are unconvinced so people keep working at it.
Maybe evolution is weak. Maybe we don’t understand everything about it.
But Dr Neeland - a scientist! - offers nothing in the way of proof for a god who created the universe and the life upon this earth. Where is his evidence?
Sorry Cutter. Maybe evolution is a weak argument. Maybe the big bang is a weak argument. But I will tell you this. There is not a shred of evidence outside of the fact that we are here and some guy 3000 years ago wrote a story trying to explain our existence to suggest that a god is responsible.
And for a scientist like Dr. Neeland to suggest “if not this, then it must be that 'cause I read it in the Bible” is ridiculous.[/quote]
I forgot to add my point when I posted that link. Some people have suggested that you have to be stupid or uneducated to believe in god yet here is one example of a highly educated man saying the theory of evolution is weak and he believes in god. Further to Dr Neeland . Dr Zakir naik makes some strong arguments for his religion (islam) against other beliefs[/quote]
I never said you have to be uneducated to believe in god. Just because someone has a bunch of certificates saying they memorized and can regurgitate the information that is presented to them, doesn’t mean one is intelligent. Am I unintelligent because I did not graduate highschool?
Anyone that can believe, and stand behind, or ignore the atrocities that go on with religion/s earns my contempt. Look at what happens in the middle east. Women are stoned, because they aren’t virgins at the time of their marriage. Vaginal reconstruction is a HUGE market over there because of that. It’s a black market too, done in secret. Women have no rights in the eyes of most religions. How can anyone stand behind that? How can anyone accept that’s okay? That is why I’m very vocal about my distaste of religion and the people who practice it. Doesn’t that seem anti-progressive?
[quote=“DWhite”]What bothers me about “scientists” like Dr Neeland is not that he opposes evolution. Many scientists will oppose theories. That is what makes science so convincing. One guy suggests something. Other guys are unconvinced so people keep working at it.
Maybe evolution is weak. Maybe we don’t understand everything about it.
But Dr Neeland - a scientist! - offers nothing in the way of proof for a god who created the universe and the life upon this earth. Where is his evidence?
Sorry Cutter. Maybe evolution is a weak argument. Maybe the big bang is a weak argument. But I will tell you this. There is not a shred of evidence outside of the fact that we are here and some guy 3000 years ago wrote a story trying to explain our existence to suggest that a god is responsible.
And for a scientist like Dr. Neeland to suggest “if not this, then it must be that 'cause I read it in the Bible” is ridiculous.[/quote]
I cant find a ridiculous comment in his post at all. His response seems to tackle the subject of creation having more validity than evolution and he challenges the writer to find evidence of evolution that he cannot find a stronger argument using the bible. His email is at the bottom of his response if you feel like rising to his challenge.
bubbasteve: For starters I did not mention names nor have I questioned your intelligence. Dr Neeland is a professor in chemistry which shows me that he would be qualified to address the subject of evolution and seeing how he backs up his argument on the subject with facts it gives him more credibility than someone who just says a person must be stupid to just believe in god.
I also do not see anyone disputing the fact that atrocities are committed by people who claim to be religious.( btw you forgot to mention the mormons in bountiful marrying child brides)
This brings me back to a comment made by someone about the gays. they did not support the bible because their friends were gay and nice people and the bible is against gays.
Here is my view on that. Yes the bible speaks against being gay but I do not need a bible to tell me that homosexuality is against nature I already know it. What the bible tells me is whatever someone else is doing or how wrong I believe it may be it is not my place to talk about them or judge them that is up to god. " let he who is with out sin cast the first stone" since we are all sinners we should not be talking trash about other peoples lives.
The bible is very clear on the fact that there are people in the church who will mislead us and it also tells us that we ourselves are far from perfect. These terrible things we see done by people under the guise of religion are in contrast to the material that I have read in the bible.
I saw Jesus today.
[quote=“cutter”]This brings me back to a comment made by someone about the gays. they did not support the bible because their friends were gay and nice people and the bible is against gays.
Here is my view on that. Yes the bible speaks against being gay but I do not need a bible to tell me that homosexuality is against nature I already know it. What the bible tells me is whatever someone else is doing or how wrong I believe it may be it is not my place to talk about them or judge them that is up to god. " let he who is with out sin cast the first stone" since we are all sinners we should not be talking trash about other peoples lives.[/quote]
Alright Cutter, if being a homosexual is against nature, then why do quite a few animals practice it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
And here’s a list of animals who practice it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
Against nature? Umm… I think not.
See what religion does? It makes ya closed minded. C’mon Cutter, open your mind a bit. Often times, I find, that religious people are FAR more judgemental than the non religious.
EDIT: Just so ya know. I don’t need to mention every atrocity made by religion, I was just using one that came to mind.
That’s funny, so did I.
He must drive like a bat outa hell.
Nah my cars slow 
The Lord moves in mysterious ways…