Star Trek & The Five Lights

[beam me up scottie]

I believe this was posted before on DU but I was reminded of it while reading a thread here tonight and thought I'd share it.

This was originally posted on Usenet and written by someone named Jaffo:

I'm about to do something I swore I would never do. I'm about to write a philosophical post based on a Star Trek episode.

You remember that episode where Picard was captured by the Cardassians?

They didn't ask him any questions about Federation security or technology or anything like that. The interrogator sat him down in front of this bank of lights and asked him how many there were.

There were four lights.

Picard answered correctly. "I see four lights."

The interrogator shocked him with this torture device and corrected his mistake. "There are FIVE lights. Now, how many lights are there."

Picard paused, recognizing the game. He answered again, "I see four lights."

The interrogator shocked him again and repeated his question, "How many lights do you see?"

Picard stuck to his guns. Louder this time. "I SEE FOUR LIGHTS!"

The interrogator stormed out of the room. Picard would not get any food or water until he agreed that there were FIVE lights.

I believe our country, our culture, our whole bloody WORLD is like this interrogation room.

Consider my perspective.

I'm living in a highly Christian town, in a highly Christian state, in a very mystical world.

I have intelligence, ability, charm, and ambition. I could wrap this town around my finger if I wanted to. But first, I have to answer the question, "How many lights do you see?"

I feel like Jesus, brought high on the mountain to look down upon the Earth. The powerful men, the string-pullers, are making me an offer. "You can have whatever you want. We'll give you fame and power nd money and love and everything else men crave. All you have to do is tell us how many lights you see."

I know what answer they want. But I can't give it to them. The answer they want is the WRONG answer.

But who am I to decide what the right answer is? I'm just one man. Fragile and scared and alone. Besides, these guys have been counting lights for 40 years. I just started counting three years ago.
Maybe there really ARE five lights. Maybe I'm just being stubborn. Maybe my dad is right. I've been told there are five lights all my life. Maybe I'm just REBELLING. Maybe I'll "grow out of it."

I hear the old ones talk sometimes. I tell them how many lights I see and they look down on me and they pat my head. They say, "When I was your age, I only saw four lights. But when you get to be MY age -- when you get a little more EXPERIENCE, you'll realize that there were five lights, all along."

I met a pretty girl yesterday. She was smart and funny and talking to her made me feel happy inside. I didn't want to ask the question. I tried not to ask. I tried to forget there even WAS a question. I tried to top caring about the answer.

But finally, I couldn't stand it anymore. I asked her, "How many lights do you see?"

She smiled at me in that familiar way and said, "There are five lights, of course. What a silly question!"

I asked my Grandmother about it. Tactfully, of course. I asked her, "Grandma, have you ever considered the possibility, just the POSSIBILITY, that there are only four lights?"

Grandma got very angry. She said it was evil to say things like that. She said bad things happen to people who don't see five lights. She told me about Uncle Charlie and Aunt Sue. Uncle Charlie and Aunt Sue said there were only four lights, but they did lots of drugs and they beat their kids and they didn't even celebrate CHRISTMAS, for God's sake!

She said my mother saw five lights and she wanted me to see five lights, and if she wasn't dead already, hearing that I only saw four lights would kill her.

She said I might as well go to my mother's grave and spit on it, talking about four lights that way.

I loved my mother, and I miss her, and I wouldn't want to make her angry or sad. But no matter how hard I squint and stare and rub my eyes, all I ever see is four lights.

When I was really little they took me to this pretty house and asked me how many lights I saw. I was very young, and I wanted to make my parents happy, so I said I saw five lights. They held me under the water for a little while and when I came up, they said I could be in the five-lights club.

At first, it was fun being in the five-lights club. Talking about the five lights made my parents very happy. I got to play with the other children and sing songs and once I made a little house out of popsicle sticks.

But as I got older, I started to worry. Everybody around me got so happy when I talked about the five lights, I started to feel guilty about it. I felt guilty about lying.

I was a good speaker, and I knew lots of big words. My parents said I should devote my life to talking about the five lights. I didn't really say anything when the subject came up. I just smiled and changed the subject.

Finally, after I was all grown up, I decided to stop lying. I decided to tell everyone that I only saw four lights -- to apologize for lying all this time.

Some of the people I told got angry. Some of them got sad. And some of them said it was "just a phase" I was going through.

I told my friends about it. Friends so close they were like brothers. Closer than any real family I ever had. We all agreed on the number of lights while we were growing up, but we never really talked about it.

It wasn't something you really TALKED about, when you were a kid. You just accepted it as fact. There were five lights. Everybody around you saw five lights and they taught you to see five lights, and that's how many there were, until the day you died.

You could talk about what color they were or how bright they were, but the number never changed. There were FIVE lights, dammit, and bad things happen to people who only see four!

I told my friends how many lights I saw. I knew it would shock them but I knew they loved me. I knew they would accept my belief, even if they didn't share it.

I was surprised when they started asking me questions:

"How do you KNOW how many lights there are?"
"Are you SURE there are only four lights?"
"Millions of people see five lights, who are YOU to only see four?"
"The fifth light is invisible, but you're supposed to see it anyway!"
"We're not wrong, your eyes are wrong!"

They were still my friends. They still loved me. But now there was something wrong. Even when we're not talking about the lights, I can tell they're thinking about them.

They don't just see ME when they look at me anymore. They see the guy who only sees four lights.

They keep their distance sometimes. They were told that bad things happen to people like me. They're afraid that if they get too close, bad things will happen to them, too.

I haven't told my Grandma yet. I haven't talked to her in a long time. I'm afraid to talk to her, because I know that if we talk, she's going to ask me the question.

I've lied to her for 20 years, but I'm not going to lie anymore. If she asks me how many lights I see, I'm going to tell her the truth.
After I tell her the truth, a lot of people are going to be worried about me. Some of them are going to hate me. I don't know which part bothers me more -- the hate or the worry.

I'd rather have people hate me than worry about me. I'm funny that way.

Before I go, I want to ask you a question.

You don't have to answer right away. You don't even have to say it out loud. Later tonight, when the doors are all locked and the lights are out and there's no one around to hear you or hate you or worry about you, take a moment and ask yourself -- honestly --

How many lights do you see?

http://ascrivenerslament.blogspot.com/2005/11/todays-sermon-on-blogstar-trek-five.html

[tmooses]

1. I believe you will be telling the truth about the lights in public soon

and, I'm no Karnac but I predict there will be at least one other person to come up to you from the "5 lighters" who will thank you for the courage of your convictions because they have spent their entire lives suspecting the truth. Forgive the quote from Shakespeare's Hamlet but it has been of some importance in my life:

This above all:
To thine own self be true,
for it must follow as dost the night the day,
that canst not then be false to any man.

[beam me up scottie]

2. Karnac :)

I love Shakespeare, wonderful choice of quotes.

[salvorhardin]

6. I can never read those words

Without hearing Skipper singing them to Gilligan.

[Greyhound]

3. Four. thanks for re-posting, it's new to me.

:kick:

[beam me up scottie]

5. You're welcome.

Four.

[dusmcj]

4. proof by vigorous assertion, power determines truth, contention is all

what is truth is determined by who utters it and how they do it.
if they succeed in convincing you they have defined a new truth.
conviction and the willingness to contend is far more important than the content of the message (note that this is essentially a verbatim quote of one of the neocons' "philosphers").
having a good punch-up is one way to have a relationship, you either end up friends and agree on what you want to define as truth and then go out and spread manure together, or one of you loses and one of you wins and the winner gets to define truth.
There is no objective fact, no rationality, everything depends on relative power.

Fuck that trash and the vermin who espouse it. Welcome to the culture war.

[beam me up scottie]

7. I learned a long time ago

who my real friends are.

Anyone who won't support my right or the right of others to be different doesn't qualify.

[NMMNG]

8. It has been posted on DU before

But thank you for re-posting.

The DUer who posted "but to thine own self be true" could not have posted a better response. I don't give a damn what threats the theists/religionists present to me. I will not pretend I believe in their myths. I will not mollify them for any reason. I will not go gentle into that dark night.

[beam me up scottie]

9. Yes, those words were perfect.

This is an outstanding essay and it deserves to be read by all.
I don't know how much of an impact it will make on anyone who hasn't seen the episode, of course.

[NMMNG]

10. I haven't seen that episode

But I have seen the post here on DU, and it makes perfect sense. Trying to make people "see" what they don't see is foolish and absurd. And those who would condemn or even kill us for failing to see their "truths" are the biggest fools of all.

[FM Arouet666]

11. I would have to say eight lights.

Perhaps the wine is causing double vision. ;) I like the episodes Chain of Command I II and had not seen the interpretation you posted. I agree with the interpretation, those damn christassians, oops, I mean Cardassians. My bad. ;)

[beam me up scottie]

12. I think the guy did a great job explaining

what it feels like to NOT believe, not because we don't want to, not because we refuse to but because we simply can't.

The usual suspects are noticeably absent in this thread.

You'd think they'd show up to tell everyone how wrong the author is.

[FM Arouet666]

15. I suspect that the usual suspects

are Trekkie illiterate.

[beam me up scottie]

22. Trekkie illiterate!

I like that.

[catbert836]

13. I've read it before, of course, but it still has the same impact.

I myself don't see only four lights. I'm not sure exactly how many lights I do see, but maybe one day I'll be certain. No matter how many lights you see, the important thing is you always make sure you be true to yourself, and the number of lights you see (read: Hamlet quote above), and that you never mistreat someone else because they see a different number of lights than you do.
I remember in my high school theology class, we were discussing Pascal's Wager one time, and it was clear that everyone, including the teacher, had accepted the Wager's premise without even thinking about it. I had to respectfully inform the class that you can no more choose to believe in God than you can choose, for this case, what number of lights you see. I hope some people took that too heart.
Peace. :toast:

[beam me up scottie]

14. Again, catbert, you amaze me.

:hug:

Your posts in here have affected many more people than you think.

You should consider writing a book about how you began your journey.

The end, of course, will have to wait.

[7102210S]

16. You are all mistaken. Ever thought about that?

There is only One Light.

[NMMNG]

17. Actually, I've never seen evidence of any light

:shrug:

[trotsky]

18. The best line of that piece

I felt guilty about lying.

You wanna talk about a "force" that made me become an atheist? That's it right there. I grew up in the Lutheran church, really believed in everything, but never had the "feeling" that it was true. Wanted desperately to feel it, but didn't. Finally I got tired of lying to myself.

[Frangible]

20. Atheism is still faith

Atheism is the belief that no higher power has the possibility of existing without any supporting data. If the only data you are basing your decisions upon is of the scientific, peer-reviewed, double-blind, published type, you would be agnostic. Stating there is no evidence for something being true, and saying that there is no possibility of something being true, are two different things.

And well, your situation is pretty common. Statistically the reason people attend church is "to feel a transforming experience with God" according to Barna Research, and if you don't, I can't imagine you'd keep going (unless you were trying to pick up chicks or something given the rather ridiculous female:male ratio these days). A lot of that also depends on the "conversion" method used; the "Jesus loves you, believe!" method that was very widely used (and still is) has about a 0% long-term success rate. The "you fucked up, God's pissed at you" method does much better statistically.

[beam me up scottie]

23. Stop calling us liars.

I'm fucking SICK of seeing know it all fundies telling atheists what they do or don't believe.

You need to go back to church and ask them to teach you about tolerance.

I hear they're big on that.

[Frangible]

25. I'm a fundie now? Haha.

Really, that's funny. I'm simply asking for the scientific data behind an assertation. If your assertation is not based on scientific data, then it is a belief. It's simple logic, I'm not sure why this is even an argument. Please read the Wikipedia article on Atheism for more information.

[beam me up scottie]

26. I don't use Wikipedia to define my atheism.

I'll make a deal with you, you can define my atheism if I can define your religious beliefs.

edited for unnecessary snark content

[Frangible]

29. Oooh, mind virus

Is that sort of like myalgic encephalomyelitis? Or rabies? With a little gene splicing I think I could advance to 28 days later! Aim for the head, Mr. Redfield.

[beam me up scottie]

31. You tell me. I don't suffer from it.

Check Wikipedia.

[Frangible]

34. I disagree

You certainly seem to be suffering and there's a lot of emotion in your posts. Looking at your posting history here I think I start to see a pattern-- tell me I'm wrong. I may have my faith, but other people's faith never makes me suffer or get angry. I enjoy learning about different faiths and what they mean for people in their lives. About the only thing that pisses me off along those lines is seeing the repeated Islamphobia in the news. (and I'm not Islamic)

But, you seem to get set off pretty easily around here. So there's something about religion, perhaps due to a bad experience in your past, that makes you seem very sensitive about it to me. I doubt this post will do anything but infuriate you further, but I can't imagine that this is something you enjoy.

[beam me up scottie]

37. Did you even read the link I posted?

If not, do so.

Also read the first five threads on the R&T page.

A lot of us are angry with good reason.

If I'm insulted day after day by someone telling me I don't know how to define myself, do you really think I'm going to smile and bend over when I'm insulted by a new person?

I suggest you read more threads in this forum.

I get along with the vast majority of believers on DU, as do my fellow pissed off atheists.

[Goblinmonger]

46. I think someone

needs to take my pledge, don't you think.

Sometimes I want to just go on a tear and define everyone in this forum in some shitty way. Problem is that I, unlike others that do it to us, would be tombstoned in a heartbeat for doing it.

[Goblinmonger]

51. Your presence is absent

on these threads:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x58210
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x58243

Maybe you could learn something from either of these.

[trotsky]

45. I don't appreciate that at all.

First, you are wrong.

Second, you don't know what I expected or experienced.

Good day.

[SidDithers]

48. You're wrong...

Atheism is the null state. It takes faith to believe in something. No faith is needed when there is no belief.

Sid

[Frangible]

19. So close, yet so far

This isn't a good analogy, and the Bible states faith isn't blind anyway. Once again this confuses the institution of religion with the religion, which just simply aren't the same thing.

[beam me up scottie]

21. WTF?

I have no idea what essay you read but nothing you posted makes any sense in regards to the one in the op.

Here's a hint, if you think you can use what the bible does or doesn't say to refute the analogy the author used, please don't bother re-reading it.

You don't understand the Star Trek episode or atheists and you probably never will.

[Frangible]

24. hah

No, I'm a big Trekkie nerd, I've watched that episode several times. Faith isn't asking someone to believe in something they know cannot be true. About the only valid part about that story was the person's relatives were acting like Cardassians. If you can't understand why the light analogy is a poor one for religion I think you should read more about the basis of faith, Christian and otherwise, perhaps Buddhism and Taoism would be less threatening for you to study.

[beam me up scottie]

27. If that's all you got out of that episode

your world view is too simplistic and your faith too dogmatic to understand atheism.

[Frangible]

28. Then please, explain your belief to me

That episode wasn't about religion, if you were a Trekkie you would know the symbolic sociopolical nature of the Cardassians. Anyway, atheism and agnostic atheism are not the same thing. And I'm always happy to expand my worldview, but most of my friends are atheists or agnostics so I'm not exactly sure what you think I'm missing.

[beam me up scottie]

30. No.

I will not ever again explain my atheism to anyone who posts this sentence or any form of it:

Atheism is still faith

The only explanation I will give from now on is this link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=57535&mesg_id=58309

[Frangible]

32. If it's not faith...

Provide data for your assertations. You've instead used personal attacks and insults-- in violation of the DU board policies-- and just to be nice, I didn't report you. All I asked for was the scientific method.

Hostility or data and science... it's your choice.

At the very least, all that anger, epinephrine, and norepinephrine's probably increased your metabolism by a good 10%. You're getting the internet forum warrior workout!

[beam me up scottie]

33. Read my post again.

I will not provide explanations to bigots who refuse to accept our definition of our atheism.

Your definition of "nice" is as lousy as your definition of atheism.

[Frangible]

35. Now I'm a bigot?

Yet another DU policy violation. I'd ask you at least try to keep this civil. Why are you repeatedly breaking the forum rules and acting like this?

Regardless, I'm simply using one definition of Atheist; I didn't invent it. I have no wish to argue semantics, so if you'd prefer I use another definition you are more comfortable with, I'll be happy to oblige you. It's not my goal to assign a bad label to you-- choose one that you like and that's what I'll use, ok?

[beam me up scottie]

36. If you refuse to accept my definition of myself, you're intolerant.

A religious bigot, iow.

Just like I would be if I did the same to you.

If you meant no offense, I apologize.

And I also apologize for suggesting I could compare your faith to fairy tales, I just wanted you to understand how it felt.

DU atheists have spent countless hours in this forum, especially in the last few days, fighting for our right to define ourselves.

We have been corrected, time and time again, by a few (a very few, thankfully) believers who tell us we are wrong.

It gets old in a hurry.

My atheism is not based on faith, I do not actively believe there are no gods.

I have never believed in any of them, it's not a choice, I see it as the default position because it's where I started out.

I don't want you to have to choose your words carefully, really.

Just don't presume all of us claim gods don't exist.

[FM Arouet666]

43. You seem to be in error.

The mods determine what is a violation of DU policy, not the posters. Are you addressing your remarks to the argument or are you appealing to an authority. I would have to judge the latter; a logical fallacy.

Simply using one definition of Atheist? Perhaps BMUS is simply using one definition of Frangible, one which includes the word bigot. But, why quibble over semantics, perhaps you would be more comfortable with another word. I, for one, would be happy to oblige.

[FM Arouet666]

42. You silly goose.

Faith; firm belief in something for which there is no proof. Atheists view the world based on science, not faith, evidence is needed. Your conclusion that atheism is just another faith appears to be in error.

Ironic that you call for the scientific method, scientism being a worldview that states that a supernatural realm does not exist. A realm accepted only by those with faith.

Warrior workout? All that anger? Irrelevant to the argument at hand.

[Goblinmonger]

49. Nice passing on of a logical fallacy

Asking us to prove a negative. That is a fallacy. Look it up. You are the one making the positive statement. We are the null hypothesis. Take a stats class. Or a logic class.

But since you bring it up, you are making a positive statement about the existence of god. Please, do, prove that statement.

[FM Arouet666]

41. Well now

I agree that the episode was not about religion, but I disagree that the symbolism cannot be used in a debate about religion. The symbolism presented in the episode is a rather generic.

Atheism and agnostic atheism are not the same thing? How do you define these terms?

[Goblinmonger]

47. Do you realize how that sounds?

It sounds like the white asshole spouting racial bigotry that then says, "Some of my best friends are black."

If most of your friends are atheist/agnostic, I have a hard time believing that you have not come up against someone being put off by being told they have faith. On second thought, I'm not. Because if someone at work knew I was an atheist (see, I don't feel comfortable as a teacher letting people know I am an atheist because I fear it would have negative connotations on my career) and they said something about my having faith, I would just do a HUGE mental eye roll and nod my head slightly. The conversation would be over and I would put that person down as someone who doesn't get it. Maybe your plethora of atheist "friends" are doing the same thing.

Do you really not get that it is rude and offensive to define someone's beliefs or lack thereof for them?

[FM Arouet666]

40. Perhaps the Cardassian sees five lights.

The analogy does not fall apart because it is told from the perspective of the atheist. Atheists see four lights, believers counter with five. Do believers see five? Who knows, perhaps they do, it is irrelevant to the argument.

The analogy demonstrates how atheists experience christian society. Christianity says believe in the supernatural, atheists say no way. Throughout history Christianity has committed far worse acts of oppression than demonstrated by the Cardassian Gul in an attempt to force non-Christians to believe.

Faith isn't asking someone to believe in something they know cannot be true? Back to the lights. The analogy is interesting because faith is interpreted in the number of lights. Evidence demonstrates only four, seen by the atheist, but not the christian. Does the christian see five, perhaps, and if so, the christian is not believing in something he or she knows cannot be true. The episode does not explore the issue of faith because the episode is not about religion. Yet, the analogy is interesting for debate.

[FM Arouet666]

38. What do you find objectionable?

[FM Arouet666]

39. On edit, hit the wrong damn key with my other post.

The Star Trek episode 'Change of Command' is not about religion and the Cardassians are not intended to represent christians. Interpretation of literature, or in this case television, is not fixed in the mind of the author. Interpretation is subjective. Interpreting the episode in question in terms of a conflict between believers and non-believers is interesting.

The 'institution of religion' different from 'religion'? Belief in four lights is different from the oppressive system which seeks to enforce a belief in four lights? Seems reminiscent of the 'True Christian' debate. Fundamentalists are intolerant, but they do not represent true christianity. I accept that the individual should not be condemned by association. But I still wonder why the vast majority of individuals remain silent when members of their group espouse extremism.

Finding fault with the analogy because the bible does not state that faith is blind? The OP suggested that the episode was a valid statement expressing atheist experience in Christan society. Blind faith? What exactly is blind faith? Accept faith without evidence, seems redundant.
All faith is blind by definition, blindness being a state without evidence.

Back to the Star Trek episode. Picard represents the atheist, Cardassians are the christians, and Gul Madred is christian oppression. Does Gul Madred see five lights or only four? Who knows, from the perspective of the atheist, he is enforcing a lie. The 'truth' in this analogy is that witnessed by Picard, the atheist. You could turn the entire analogy around and make the Cardassian the atheist and Picard the believer.

You can debate which version you prefer, but it is irrelevant. The OP stated that the interpretation of the episode with Picard as the atheist depicts an accurate portrayal of how atheists, including myself, view christian America.

You can disagree with atheist interpretation of the episode, an interpretation rooted in personal displeasure with religious activism, but the analogy seems to be a rather generic expression of good vs evil, righteousness vs oppression, etc vs etc. How is it a bad analogy?

[Behind the Aegis]

44. I am not Carole Ann...I won't go into the light....

I have actually seen this post (well, the Jaffo part) several times, in many places. I have seen it applied to a number of analogies.

What are the "lights?" They are nothing more than an expectation of conformity and expectation. The 'lights' could be religion, sexuality, gender identification, even political affiliation. What the analogy boils down to, IMHO, is "do you see what the "norm" expects you to see?" Since this is in the religion forum, I will address it as such.

Many people see 5 lights and not 4. Does this mean, automatically, that they are wrong? One one level, yes, they are wrong. However, they may not be. Sometimes, things aren't as we see them. Sometimes, it is preception...is it two faces or a vase? Or both? We may be mislead, at times, and other times, we use 'faith' to guide us, rightly or wrongly.

The above may make no sense. However, I like to see as many 'realities' as possible, even the ones I feel are not even close to the truth, as I know it. My real concern is when others dictate what I should know as "truth."

The final question of the author (the repost, not BMUS), is "How many lights do you see?" My response: why does it matter to you? As long as I don't try to make you see my "lights," why should it matter how many I see? Unless my 'vision' conflicts with your rights as a human, or could harm others, the number I see, shouldn't affect you.

Personally, I see different numbers of lights; depending on what is happening. The only light I really try to see is within myself. IMO, if I can't see my own light, how can I see the light of others? I don't need others to validate my lights, nor will I allow others to try invalidating someone else's light. If anyone tries to dictate the number of lights you see, then you should stay true to who you are, no matter the pain...because that is the real light, "knowing yourself."

BTW...I love that episode! It reminds me that in the worst of times "to thine ownself be true!"

The best of friends don't always have to agree, they just have to believe they are the best of friends...that is your light!

[SidDithers]

50. Had never seen that before...

thanks for posting, BMUS.

Sid

[Sooner75]

52. I love this original post (re-post)

That episode with Picard being tortured and humiliated by the Cardassian is a brief but poignant exploration of the nature of torture and brainwashing.

Picard heroically sticks to reality and refuses to be led away from it, because he knows that he'll be lost if he does.

Like the essayist and a number of you out there, I don't subscribe to the prevailing faith-based point of view, and I have been leaned on and continue to be pressured to conform. Like Picard, I know I'd be lost, but, beyond that, I have recently felt more and more that the faith-based point of view is simply a construct that helps people feel better. If it works for you, I have no quarrel with that. However, I reserve the right to opt out.

One time when the pastor of my wife's church came calling, he pressed me on this. My response was earnest and direct. I got down my big coffee table book on galaxies, and I spoke to him about the universe and what we know about it. The estimated 100 billion stars in this galaxy, and the estimated 200 billion galaxies out there. (That would be 2 x 10 to the 22nd power lights, if you will.) I explained that in my mind the point of view he advocated seems at odds with that empirical evidence. The faith-based view just seems so simplistic to me. He didn't have much to say after that.

So, in this metaphor, I see "four lights". It's often lonely and uncomfortable, but I see what I see. It cannot be otherwise. But, when I remember that Galileo spent the rest of his life in house arrest by the Church, I think that my lot isn't so bad. The judgement of history now favors Galileo who challenged the accepted beliefs of his time and not the Church who imprisoned him for his "dangerous" assertions.

[Goblinmonger]

53. Welcome to DU

Hope you like it here. A lot of people here think like you do; hopefully that will be of some comfort and/or give you a place to discuss.

[beam me up scottie]

54. A kick for those who have convinced themselves that atheism is a "choice".

Maybe they'll learn something.

[Proud_Democratt]

55. And the funny thing is...

that they believe we chose this because out of rebellion.

[beam me up scottie]

56. They're brainwashed into believing that.

Too bad they're not able to think outside of the box, it's pretty damn nice out here.

[Proud_Democratt]

57. Wish I could close the lid

on them while they're inside.