Ha Ha. Salvation Army...not the brightest crayon in the box...

[Evan!]

Check it. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_fake_checks_charities)

Who the hell spends the money before you even bother to verify or cash a mysterious $25k check? You gotta be kidding me. As far as I'm concerned, this is karmic retribution for trying to bribe Bush into helping them skirt federal anti-discrimination guidelines. :cool:

[PseudoChef]

Yep, saw this yesterday and el oh eled, as you would say.

[rdwj]

Good grief - I understand that you disagree with the Christian principles the organization holds, but you can't argue the fact that they do a TON of good in the community. We should have more organizations of all faiths (or no faith at all) that do the work the Salvation Army does.

[DonkeyShoes]

It's simply irresponsible of them to use that money without verification. I understand that they can't do this (from the article):

"People say why don't you check every check? We have old ladies who send us a dollar and we're talking at this time of year we have anywhere from 500 to 1,000 checks coming in a week," she said.

But a $25k check from a company you're not familiar with?

[Evan!]

Good grief - I understand that you disagree with the Christian principles the organization holds, but you can't argue the fact that they do a TON of good in the community. We should have more organizations of all faiths (or no faith at all) that do the work the Salvation Army does.

I don't care if they're a christian organization and they want to hate on teh gheys. That's their prerogative as a private charity (though it does make me give my charity dollars elsewhere). My real problem with them is that that wasn't enough for them...they had to have their cake and eat it too. So they got into some backroom dealin with our evangelical president wherein they would publicly support his faith-based initiatives only if he was able to somehow make it so they could get federal handouts (taxpayer dollars), but not have to adhere to the same hiring guidelines that other organizations do when they take federal money. In other words, they wanted taxpayer dollars, but they still wanted to be able to discriminate against gays (and nonchristians) while receiving it.

I don't care how much good you do for the community - it doesn't excuse that bullshit.

[rdwj]

I don't care if they're a christian organization and they want to hate on teh gheys. That's their prerogative as a private charity (though it does make me give my charity dollars elsewhere). My real problem with them is that that wasn't enough for them...they had to have their cake and eat it too. So they got into some backroom dealin with our evangelical president wherein they would publicly support his faith-based initiatives only if he was able to somehow make it so they could get federal handouts (taxpayer dollars), but not have to adhere to the same hiring guidelines that other organizations do when they take federal money. In other words, they wanted taxpayer dollars, but they still wanted to be able to discriminate against gays (and nonchristians) while receiving it.

I don't care how much good you do for the community - it doesn't excuse that bullshit.

So, you'd respect an organization that would abandon their principals for cold hard cash more than one that practices what it preaches? I don't agree with some of their positions, but asking a faith based organization to open themselves to hiring people that don't share the same core beliefs is silly. It's a lawsuit waiting to happen.

[Evan!]

So, you'd respect an organization that would abandon their principals for cold hard cash more than one that practices what it preaches? I don't agree with some of their positions, but asking a faith based organization to open themselves to hiring people that don't share the same core beliefs is silly. It's a lawsuit waiting to happen.

No, my problem is with the fact that they wanted taxpayer monies, while not adhering to the very same regulations that everyone else receiving taxpayer monies has to adhere to. In essence, they were saying that because they're a religious organization, they should get a special exemption from these regulations, and they were willing to bribe/blackmail the president to get their way. I don't expect them to "abandon their principles", abhorrent as they may be...I only expect them to follow the same damn rules that secular organizations must follow when taking taxpayer monies. It's rather simple. If they want taxpayer dollars, then they have to follow the rules that everyone else has to follow. If they don't want to abandon their hateful principles, then fine, get your money elsewhere. Granting special exceptions from the law based on some religious hoobajoob is wrong.

[Rhoobarb]

...religious hoobajoob...
I saw those guys open up for Styx at Alpine Valley back when they had their original guitarist.

[rdwj]

No, my problem is with the fact that they wanted taxpayer monies, while not adhering to the very same regulations that everyone else receiving taxpayer monies has to adhere to. In essence, they were saying that because they're a religious organization, they should get a special exemption from these regulations, and they were willing to bribe/blackmail the president to get their way. I don't expect them to "abandon their principles", abhorrent as they may be...I only expect them to follow the same damn rules that secular organizations must follow when taking taxpayer monies. It's rather simple. If they want taxpayer dollars, then they have to follow the rules that everyone else has to follow. If they don't want to abandon their hateful principles, then fine, get your money elsewhere. Granting special exceptions from the law based on some religious hoobajoob is wrong.

I think you have a problem differentiating between disapproving of behaviors/activities and hate. The godhatesfags people actually hate gay people. Most Christian groups think the behavior is sinful - along with countless other activities.

TONS of organizations ask for special treatment from the government if they feel they have reason to be treated differently. Hell, lots of organizations sponsor lobbyist to have laws written and/or changed that benefit them. This is nothing out of the ordinary.

Faith based organizations do a lot of good and should be leveraged to take some of the burden off of tax payers. I don't see any good reason why they should have to hire outside of their faith - this goes for ANY faith - even atheist.

And you have to ask, why would ANYONE want to work for an organization that completely disapproves of their lifestyle? I'd guess it's not much of a problem in reality. It's lawyers, troublemakers and those looking for someone to sue that look for these types of situations to exploit.

[Evan!]

I think you have a problem differentiating between disapproving of behaviors/activities and hate. The godhatesfags people actually hate gay people. Most Christian groups think the behavior is sinful - along with countless other activities.

Damn, can't a motherfucker be hyperbolic anymore?


TONS of organizations ask for special treatment from the government if they feel they have reason to be treated differently. Hell, lots of organizations sponsor lobbyist to have laws written and/or changed that benefit them. This is nothing out of the ordinary.

I guess that makes it okay? You should see the nonsense that contractors have to go through on this project I'm working on, simply because we're getting a DoE grant for geothermal wells. A lot of the requirements deal with making sure that they hire minority/woman-owned subcontractors. So should they be able to skirt those laws if they're racist/sexist? "Oh, woe is me, mister government man, I hate them negroes, but these stupid laws require me to hire them, please let it slide!" Really? They'd be laughed out of the building.


Faith based organizations do a lot of good and should be leveraged to take some of the burden off of tax payers. I don't see any good reason why they should have to hire outside of their faith - this goes for ANY faith - even atheist.

I'm not saying faith-based groups are bad. Simply that getting special treatment so that they can discriminate is abhorrent...no less abhorrent than someone wanted to get around the law because they're racist.


And you have to ask, why would ANYONE want to work for an organization that completely disapproves of their lifestyle? I'd guess it's not much of a problem in reality. It's lawyers, troublemakers and those looking for someone to sue that look for these types of situations to exploit.

And then I would ask you in return, if it is in fact not a big deal and the SA doesn't expect any gays/nonchristians to apply, why did they go through so much trouble to try and get special exceptions?

[rdwj]

I guess that makes it okay? You should see the nonsense that contractors have to go through on this project I'm working on, simply because we're getting a DoE grant for geothermal wells. A lot of the requirements deal with making sure that they hire minority/woman-owned subcontractors. So should they be able to skirt those laws if they're racist/sexist? "Oh, woe is me, mister government man, I hate them negroes, but these stupid laws require me to hire them, please let it slide!" Really? They'd be laughed out of the building.

I have issues with minority/woman-owned quotas to begin with, but that's a different argument - and one that we'd probably be on the same side. Contractors should be hired based on their abilities to compete in a free market - not the color / sex of the owner.

Funny story - my father used to own a lumberyard. He used to sell lumber to a black guy that owned a "lumber business" as well as lots of other businesses. These were really just shell companies that competed for contracts as a minority owner.



I'm not saying faith-based groups are bad. Simply that getting special treatment so that they can discriminate is abhorrent...no less abhorrent than someone wanted to get around the law because they're racist.

The difference between discrimination based on color and religion is that everyone is free to choose (or not choose) a religion. For charitable orgs, it seems sensible to me to allow variations in hiring practices for the overall benefits the groups provide. It's an unnecessary hurdle that keeps our country from utilizing some great organizations that provide services to homeless, sick, poor, veterans and all sorts of underprivileged people.



And then I would ask you in return, if it is in fact not a big deal and the SA doesn't expect any gays/nonchristians to apply, why did they go through so much trouble to try and get special exceptions?

Some would apply - activists and those that are looking for situations to make a quick buck by suing.

[Evan!]

I have issues with minority/woman-owned quotas to begin with, but that's a different argument - and one that we'd probably be on the same side. Contractors should be hired based on their abilities to compete in a free market - not the color / sex of the owner.

Being against the entire idea of quotas and antidiscrimination laws is certainly different than petitioning for special exceptions to them because of religious hoobajoob.


The difference between discrimination based on color and religion is that everyone is free to choose (or not choose) a religion. For charitable orgs, it seems sensible to me to allow variations in hiring practices for the overall benefits the groups provide. It's an unnecessary hurdle that keeps our country from utilizing some great organizations that provide services to homeless, sick, poor, veterans and all sorts of underprivileged people.


Why does that choice really matter? And it can obviously be argued that homosexuality is not a choice. In any case, the law should be applied uniformly, not least of which because of the whole first amendment thing. Saying you can discriminate because you hold a particular religious belief, but I can't discriminate simply because I don't like X, is idiocy.

And there are plenty of secular charities (or even religious ones who are not so damn fervent with their anti-homosexuality stance) that could use those taxpayer dollars as well...


Some would apply - activists and those that are looking for situations to make a quick buck by suing.

[Citation needed]

[rdwj]

Why does that choice really matter? And it can obviously be argued that homosexuality is not a choice. In any case, the law should be applied uniformly, not least of which because of the whole first amendment thing. Saying you can discriminate because you hold a particular religious belief, but I can't discriminate simply because I don't like X, is idiocy.

Choice matters - If I really want to be included - you can be. I don't consider that discriminatory. I agree that being gay isn't a choice - at least in most cases, but they have the choice of not acting on those urges or not disclosing that information if they REALLY want to be part of the org. Personally, I don't know why anyone would do that, but it is an option. If I had a fundamental problem with the purpose of an organization, I would want no part of it. Seems that it people used that same logic, this would be a non-issue.

[Evan!]

That's not so much the point as much as it is that religious organizations should not be exempted from the same rules everyone else has to follow just because their holy text justifies it. If you want to argue that no federal antidiscrimination laws should be applied to receivers of federal funds, then argue that point. It has validity.

[rdwj]

That's not so much the point as much as it is that religious organizations should not be exempted from the same rules everyone else has to follow just because their holy text justifies it. If you want to argue that no federal antidiscrimination laws should be applied to receivers of federal funds, then argue that point. It has validity.

If we were discussing for-profit business, I think I'd probably agree. But this is not a profit situation. We're looking at orgs that can take huge burdens off of tax payers with their non-profit activities.

[Evan!]

You keep trying to nail that point home, but the fact of the matter is, there is nothing intrinsic in performing those non-profit charitable activities that necessitates the discrimination you're talking about.

[blacklab]

I think it should be harder to get a 501(c)(3) designation. Back in my PR days I worked with all kinds of yahoos that were tax exempt and only very loosely met the criteria of 'charitable' IMHO.

[rdwj]

You keep trying to nail that point home, but the fact of the matter is, there is nothing intrinsic in performing those non-profit charitable activities that necessitates the discrimination you're talking about.

First - The major advantage of these orgs is that they don't hire most of their help - it's largely volunteer. They are not HUGE employers that are providing tons of jobs, so the cost of exclusion is insignificant. Also, due to this volunteer structure, they can do a LOT more with the money they get than what could be done in a non-faith based org. It's a good value for our tax dollars.

The "discriminatory" requirements are core beliefs of the faith based orgs - and like I said previously, anyone CAN join if they really want to. Faith based orgs are different than regular business entities because they see their charitable activities as doing what they believe God is asking of them. Asking them not to use their beliefs and hire outside of their faith is ridiculous and pretty insulting. That is who they are and the purpose of their life - very different that a standard organization and worthy of special treatment.

[Evan!]

First - The major advantage of these orgs is that they don't hire most of their help - it's largely volunteer. They are not HUGE employers that are providing tons of jobs, so the cost of exclusion is insignificant. Also, due to this volunteer structure, they can do a LOT more with the money they get than what could be done in a non-faith based org. It's a good value for our tax dollars.

I don't see why it's a better value than secular charities, but even if that is indeed the case, it still doesn't or shouldn't factor into whether we make special exceptions in the rules based on religious beliefs. I would like to think that equality under the law is more important than political or economic expediency.


The "discriminatory" requirements are core beliefs of the faith based orgs - and like I said previously, anyone CAN join if they really want to. Faith based orgs are different than regular business entities because they see their charitable activities as doing what they believe God is asking of them. Asking them not to use their beliefs and hire outside of their faith is ridiculous and pretty insulting. That is who they are and the purpose of their life - very different that a standard organization and worthy of special treatment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." A law granting special treatment to a religious organization based solely on their religious beliefs (a choice, remember) seems to me to be in direct violation of the letter and spirit of the first amendment. Again, there is nothing intrinsic in the act of charity that requires discrimination. It's a product of their faith. And quite frankly, if they refuse to do charitable works simply because they're not allowed to discriminate against homosexuals and nonchristians, then I have even less respect for them. One would think that the former would be more important than the latter.

[rdwj]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Apples and oranges.

We're not talking about one established state religion. We're talking about using the resources of ALL of the faith-based organizations for our mutual benefit.

[Evan!]

How is that apples and oranges? The establishment clause is certainly not limited to prohibiting an official state religion, in spirit or letter. Read what it says. By treating someone differently under the law based on their religious beliefs, they are "respecting the establishment of religion". American case law will certainly support this. It's pretty much exactly what the establishment clause was meant to protect against: inequality in the eyes of the law...and a special law that excepts people or organization based solely on their religious beliefs is just that: inequality under the law. It's not really any different than saying that someone can't be tried for robbery because their religious beliefs support and encourage robbery. If a secular group must follow these hiring guidelines, then so should a religious one. Equality in the eyes of the law.

And, yet again, nobody is saying that we can't or shouldn't use their resources...simply that we shouldn't be creating loopholes in the laws that everyone else has to follow simply to cater to their religious beliefs.

[BlindLemonLars]

this goes for ANY faith - even atheist.


Atheism is NOT a faith. No way, no how.

[fireballmatt]

Atheism is NOT a faith. No way, no how.

I agree, it's defined as "the rejection of theism" or "someone who denies the existence of god"

Pretty cut and dry.

[rdwj]

Even, I'll get back to you when I have some time.


Atheism is NOT a faith. No way, no how.

I disagree. I have faith that there is a God as do followers of just about every religion and we base that belief on scripture, personal experiences or whatever. Atheists have faith that there is no god based on their belief in the writings if scientists and their personal experiences. Since nobody will really knows for sure, all we can rely on is faith.

[BlindLemonLars]

I disagree. I have faith that there is a God as do followers of just about every religion and we base that belief on scripture, personal experiences or whatever. Atheists have faith that there is no god based on their belief in the writings if scientists and their personal experiences.

That's so appallingly false. Atheism is NOT a faith, it's the complete absence of faith, the acknowledgement that "faith" in anything (including scientists) is an intellectual copout and a dead end. You simply do not know what the word means...and if you're going to create your own meaning to further your argument on the Salvation Army issue, I have to call you on it.

Sorry, but I cannot let such a ridiculous statement stand unchallenged...perhaps it belongs in another thread altogether. But allowing such an approach in a discussion opens the door for endless amounts of bullshit to follow.

[Ope08]

I saw those guys open up for Styx at Alpine Valley back when they had their original guitarist.


lol...

[BlindLemonLars]

I saw those guys open up for Styx at Alpine Valley back when they had their original guitarist.

Didn't their original guitarist die in a bizarre gardening accident? (Or did choke on someone else's vomit?)

[rdwj]

How is that apples and oranges? The establishment clause is certainly not limited to prohibiting an official state religion, in spirit or letter. Read what it says.

I have read it - and understand the spirit.

Obviously we're not going to agree. I see the net benefit of using faith groups to the benefit of the nation. I consider them excluding of people for hired positions based on opposition to core beliefs trivial as nobody should want to work for a group with such different views as their own. You disagree. We can post all day long and that won't change - so I'm done with it. I respectfully disagree and I'll leave it at that.


That's so appallingly false. Atheism is NOT a faith, it's the complete absence of faith

It's not a faith in the same way as Christianity or Islam, but it takes "faith" to believe that there is no god - which is what is meant. You're sort of cherry-picking one sentence that has very little to do with the discussion. I have no desire to have a religious discussion on this, or any other board.

[fireballmatt]

Atheism is NOT a faith, it's the complete absence of faith, the acknowledgement that "faith" in anything (including scientists) is an intellectual copout and a dead end. You simply do not know what the word means

I think he's confusing the term "atheist" with "agnostic"

[BlindLemonLars]

It's not a faith in the same way as Christianity or Islam, but it takes "faith" to believe that there is no god - which is what is meant.

Again, that is not correct. I don't have faith there is no god. But in the complete absence of any evidence of god, I have no reason to think there is one or even consider the possibility. Should such evidence present itself, I'd keep an open mind. (A large anonymous deposit to a Cayman Island bank account in my name would be an example of such evidence! :D)

I really don't mean to be a PITA about this...and I think most people on the forum know it's not my nature to be combative. But in the context in which you used the word, this is an important distinction.

In the interest of staying on topic, I have to side with Evan. Discrimination is reprehensible coming from anybody, even a charity. If the Salvation Army wishes to discriminate against certain people in society, I suppose that's their business. But if they accept taxpayer money, it becomes everybody's business and they need to meet the same standards as any other agency accepting federal funds. That they are a church or charity shouldn't even enter into the equation, we don't trash our principles and look the other way just because some good will come of it...the ends do not justify the means.

[Tankard]

I agree, it's defined as "the rejection of theism" or "someone who denies the existence of god"

Pretty cut and dry.

Not all atheists outright deny the existence of God. Even some of the most die hard atheists like Richard Dawkins admit that there is a very slim chance in their minds that such a possibility exists. For Dawkins, he has a hard time saying that there is zero chance that God exists because he can't quite wrap his mind around the idea that the delicate balance of the universe was purely the result of chance.

I tend to agree with Dawkins. It's possible, but not very likely. Either way, nobody knows for sure. Agnosticism FTW.

[Joos]

Not all atheists outright deny the existence of God. Even some of the most die hard atheists like Richard Dawkins admit that there is a very slim chance in their minds that such a possibility exists. For Dawkins, he has a hard time saying that there is zero chance that God exists because he can't quite wrap his mind around the idea that the delicate balance of the universe was purely the result of chance.

I tend to agree with Dawkins. It's possible, but not very likely. Either way, nobody knows for sure. Agnosticism FTW.

That would be agnostic. Atheists believe there is no god.

lol. ......Of course theres no god. Chance is not a factor.

[Evan!]

It's not a faith in the same way as Christianity or Islam, but it takes "faith" to believe that there is no god - which is what is meant. You're sort of cherry-picking one sentence that has very little to do with the discussion. I have no desire to have a religious discussion on this, or any other board.

Wait, so every single thing that you don't believe in takes faith? Every single possible thing? So it takes "faith" to not believe that our universe is just one big elephant turd? If this is your definition of "faith", then it is so inconsequential as to lose all meaning. Everything is faith and nothing is faith.

I know that your aim is to try to put theism and atheism on the same plane and thus lessen the whole "hoobajoob" nature of faith, but it doesn't work like that. There is a fundamental difference between theism and atheism, between faith and lack thereof...just like someone who lacked faith that an invisible pink unicorn was following them around would not be said to "have faith" in the lack of invisible pink unicorns.

Honestly, you really do need to read Darwin's Dangerous Idea (Dennett), especially the chapter on The Library of Babel.

[Evan!]

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. Agnosticism is the lack of knowledge. (gnosis: to know). They are describing different things. One can be, as I am, an agnostic atheist. They lack a belief in god, but don't claim to know with absolute certainty that there is not one. Then there's gnostic atheists (I've met very few) who lack faith and are certain there is no god. There are also gnostic theists and agnostic theists.

Thus, it kinda makes no sense to say "I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic". Sorta like saying "I'm not a methodist, I'm a homebrewer".

[kolonial72]

Well, back to the subject at hand - SALVATION ARMY SUCKS, with their little ringy fucking bells and red cauldrons. Hey, aren't cauldrons a sign of the devil, or some shit?

[Evan!]

I'll say it again: ringing a bell in my face like I'm some kind of trained bird is just obnoxious. Put up a sign asking for donations, that's all you need. Hell, I saw a bell ringer outside of a liquor store in NC this year that took it to another level...they got this hot piece of jailbait ass all dressed up in a "sexy misses clause" outfit to smile at everyone. You should have seen the horndog old men drooling over her as they dropped their money into the cauldron. Ugh.

[broadbill]

For Dawkins, he has a hard time saying that there is zero chance that God exists because he can't quite wrap his mind around the idea that the delicate balance of the universe was purely the result of chance.



If I recall correctly, it wasn't that Dawkins' position on the existence of God is from the fact that he can't fully commit to believing that the universe came about by chance (he explains in great detail how he thinks post-big bang events did indeed happen by chance). Instead, it was more of an intellectual concession.

In other words, since Dawkins' does not 100% knowledge of the universe, he has to concede that there is a very, very, very, VERY slim chance there might be a god and he created everything. Just as he would have to concede that there is a very, very, very, VERY slim chance that the flying spaghetti monster exists and he created everything (or any other method of creation you can dream up).

In an infinite universe, there is an infinite chance of an event occurring.

[Evan!]

In other words, since Dawkins' does not 100% knowledge of the universe, he has to concede that there is a very, very, very, VERY slim chance there might be a god and he created everything. Just as he would have to concede that there is a very, very, very, VERY slim chance that the flying spaghetti monster exists and he created everything (or any other method of creation you can dream up).

In an infinite universe, there is an infinite chance of an event occurring.

Exactly. I know I keep mentioning this, but the very best explanation of this idea, better even than Dawkins', is the "Library of Babel" chapter in Dan Dennett's 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea'. Even if you don't read the whole book, that chapter alone is worth the price of admission.

[Ope08]

Not all atheists outright deny the existence of God. Even some of the most die hard atheists like Richard Dawkins admit that there is a very slim chance in their minds that such a possibility exists. For Dawkins, he has a hard time saying that there is zero chance that God exists because he can't quite wrap his mind around the idea that the delicate balance of the universe was purely the result of chance.

I tend to agree with Dawkins. It's possible, but not very likely. Either way, nobody knows for sure. Agnosticism FTW.


Yeah...no... all Atheists deny the exsistence of any supernatural deity, that is the case by definition, you've got Dawkins concession all wrong. Dawkins has said, repeatedly, that as a scientist he of course cannot say he supports any "100% positive" claim, but that he does call the claim vanishingly small, and that he hopes it isn't true as well. Simply because it is pretty much only the Christian god he is ever asked about, and he thinks the Christian god is one of the more cruel deities ever invented. Dawkins is, in his own words, not an agnostic in any way shape or form, except in such cases where the interveiwer may demand 100% positivity in order to agree with the atheist claim. Of course only a douche would demand that...

[Tankard]

Dawkins is, in his own words, not an agnostic in any way shape or form.

Yes he is. Agnostic literally translates to "lack of knowledge". Dawkins does not know there is no God, nobody does, because there is no way to prove it one way or the other.

Theism is defined as "the belief in the existence of a god or gods", which makes the definition of atheism the lack of said belief. Dawkins does not believe in a god or gods, so that makes him an atheist. In "The God Delusion," Dawkins describes a 1-7 scale, with 7 being "I know for a fact there is no God." Dawkins describes himself as a 6. Only militant (gnostic) atheists claim that there is no possibility of a god or gods existing. Most atheists describe themselves as agnostic atheists, because although there is no evidence to support the existence of god, they do not make a claim that they cannot prove with evidence.

[broadbill]

Yes he is. Agnostic literally translates to "lack of knowledge". Dawkins does not know there is no God, nobody does, because there is no way to prove it one way or the other.

Theism is defined as "the belief in the existence of a god or gods", which makes the definition of atheism the lack of said belief. Dawkins does not believe in a god or gods, so that makes him an atheist. In "The God Delusion," Dawkins describes a 1-7 scale, with 7 being "I know for a fact there is no God." Dawkins describes himself as a 6. Only militant (gnostic) atheists claim that there is no possibility of a god or gods existing. Most atheists describe themselves as agnostic atheists, because although there is no evidence to support the existence of god, they do not make a claim that they cannot prove with evidence.

I think you are splitting hairs. Dawkins concedes that he is an agnostic from a scientific standpoint....that you cannot prove anything with a 100% certainty. From this stand point, Dawkins cannot fully subscribe to being an atheist (back to the whole infinite universe, infinite possibilities thing).

From a practical standpoint, he is comfortable concluding there is no God. This conclusion is based on the evidence at hand. Sometimes scientists have to assume a conclusion is 100% certain in order to move on to the next set of experiments or else they will forever spin their wheel trying to prove something that cannot be proven (nothing can be 100% proven as I mentioned).

In other words, Dawkins conclusion that he is an atheist comes from the absolute lack of evidence for a God, much like we assume that the Theory of Evolution is true from the absolute mountain of evidence for it.

[Lerxst]

I think that there is something about the Salvation Army that we can all agree is just bad news:


By far the most common drug addiction is to alcohol, and this addiction is on the increase in most parts of the world. The Salvation Army, recognizing both spiritual and temporal dangers inherent in the use of alcoholic beverages, has historically required total abstinence of its soldiers and officers. While not condemning those outside its ranks who choose to indulge, it nevertheless believes total abstinence to be the only certain guarantee against overindulgence and the evils attendant on addiction.

[Evan!]

I think that there is something about the Salvation Army that we can all agree is just bad news:

I'm fairly certain that they had to amend that statement once teh internetz got a hold of it. It didn't used to have that little blurb about "not condemning those outside its ranks".

Regardless, their whole "doing the most good" thing sure has a lot of contingencies and conditions.