Bierce has an undeniable sense of humor, but the consequences of idolitry are not funny at all.

Have you not noticed the very wide variety of character types that develop within a given system that would seem to contradict the quote?

What we can see with the naked eye is a fraction of what exists. There are many things that we have not detected or been able to measure or examine because we have no way of perceiving them. But we know they exist. There is more proof of God's existence than there is of the Big Bang, but you prefer to accept the Big Bang and reject God. Well, something went bang, did it not? Therefore, something was there before the bang. What went bang? That infinitetesimaly tiny, itsy-bitsy particle containing all energy, that suddenly expanded to become the universe? And if the universe is an open system, as some scientists prefer, having shrunk and expanded again unknown times, did it start as the big thing and shrink down to the tuny thing? Or did it first expand and then contract? I really think you are out of your monds to reject the existence of God. It's so eay for you to do, so easy and cynical. You don't realize how much you are losing personally by assigning God to oblivion.

Rejection of God is foolish. You have never seen the wind, but it is. You may have never heard God's voice, but He speaks. He also anwers.

Science is faith-based.

But we can also save the integrity of this space by publishing contradictions to slanders that others publish here: Although many people, including Christians, claim to know "the truth", the truth is, at present, unknowable, which is also revealed in writings found in the Bible. While the truth, as defined as the way of Jesus, is something true, the truth is a very extensive subject, unknowable to men. In the First Letter to the Corinthians 13, we are told that we do not presently see the whole truth. And in 1 John (I think it's in 1 John, but it could be 2 John), we are told that we do not yet know what we will be; hence, there is much we do not know and cannot now know. There is so much more that we do not know than what we do know. We do know, however, that the truth is not twisting reality or facts to suit us as we jump around defending one or another facet of reality or group of facts (true facts or erroneous ones.) I feel so much better now. And now I will drop the subject.

The Hebrew Book of the Law, put in written form about 1500 BC, also shows the same principles to be primary. Maybe we could find them in even older writings. It is immaterial as to when they were first expressed. There is, after all, one God.

NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION (AS AMENDED AND IN FORCE JAN. 1, 1985) Archer: The state constitutionss say GOD, not creator. PREAMBLE WE, THE PEOPLE of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings, DO ESTABLISH THIS CONSTITUTION.

Archer: Creator = God. Christ has many followers. The Bible itself reveals that many would be the ones calling Jesus Lord who would be rejected by him due to their failure to obey him. That does not mean that Christ does not have followers. You twist meanings so readily that I doubt the worth of engaging you in conversation. You are a typical scoffer, long on wit, short on information.

Archer would like what he wrote to be true, but it simply is not possible. You cannot separate a society into those who believe, and therefore have no access to weaponry, and those who do not believe in God, and have access to bombs. It cannot happen. In addition. There are Chritians who support war and others who do not. Archer's comments are unsupportable. The 50 state constitutions all acknowledge God as the giver of blessings to whom they look for approval. All 50 of them. You cannot erase facts so easily.

Religion is a system of belief, with respect to a deity and the universe, while God is a living spirit, inseperable from life, and the author of morality. Religion is one thing, while life and morality are another. Evolution is a theory, based on faith in something unproven, that is taught dogmatically as though true, mostly by those who reject the idea that God exists.

The theories of evolution should not be taught as truth. They are the dogma of a religious faith believing in a Big Bang deity.

To the extent that Government is nothing more than a group of men is the fault not of that group of men, but of every other person who does not oppose that group of men when called for. That group of men is just doing what comes naturally to predators and parasites.

Since many are convinced, through expressions that encourage them, to do the abominable or destructive, there is every reason to use appropriate censure, to prevent even more abomination. Expressions encouraging certain behaviors should not be tolerated, especially with respect to the very young and the naturally stupid. To convince these of the acceptability of carrying out abomination is equal to sociopathy.

265 popes in 2000 years is too many.

The earth revolves around the sun? Go on!

I agree.

I almost wrote that such a narrow and unrealistic comment seems to reveal the less profound aspect of Hoffer's thinking. But then I noted that Hoffer wrote, not that the oppressed never fight for freedom, but that Hoffer doubted whether the oppressed did so. He is doubting, not declaring a fact. In fact, the oppressed often fight for freedom. .

To persecute, in itself, is neither right nor wrong. Who and what is being persecuted? Is it bad to persecute terrorists?

I doubt that Hoffer was ever oppressed.

Why do Americans love dumping on America, while apparenttly ignoring the reality that, despite America's faults, it is one of the more humane and reasonable nations. People should try living in North Korea, Cuba, China, Sudan, or (without American dollars). Our soldiers signed up of their own free will. They took an oath to obey the commander in chief.

Reston made a reasonable observation.

Superior intelligence is not a prereqisite of either corruption or sedition.

Is this not a bit self-evident? ;-)

Robert and Reston: Most people who own weapons do not use them illegally. Most people who own arms illegally use them inappropriately. We have a right to own arms and to use them appropriately, which is how 99.99 % of us use them. Criminals commit crimes with and without arms. The issue is not whether we have the right to own arms; the issue is that people become criminals when they hurt others, which applies to a small minority of abusers. Accidents with fierarms kill very few people. This is a fact that none of your empty, false rhetoric can refute. In our society, so many people are hurt and abused by others who do not own arms, while the actual percentage of those hurt by arms equals far less than 1% of all those who are hurt by criminals. Try using the truth to support your arguments, rather than emotional appeals that lack rationality and validity.