Atheist!

[sr71plt]

And they go to church more for the community than the religion.

I know a lot of these types, at least.

Yeah, and until a burning bush comes along for them, I see nothing but good--because most of them are also doing good works in the community through their church association. If they're happy with that, so am I.

 

[wmrs2]

You know, it occurs to me that Socrates bad logic here--and I can't help but think you've misquoted in some way, because it's TERRIBLE logic, allows for almost anyone or anything to be smarter than anyone. For example:

Dominatrixes are smarter than Clowns because Clowns think they know but know not. Dominatrixes know not but know that they know not. That's why they keep searching for truth.

No proof needed to show that Dominatrixes search for the truth but clowns do not. You define them that way and win the argument. This is fun. Let's try another:

Girl Scouts are smarter than Pirates because Pirates think they know but know not. Girl Scouts know not but know that they know not. That's why they keep searching for truth.

Oh! Oh! How about this:

Squids are smarter than humans because humans think they know but know not. Squids know not but know that they know not. That's why they keep searching for truth.

Now, admit it. You can't *PROVE* that squids aren't searching for the truth can you? I say they are, you can't offer any evidence that they are not, therefore, squids are far smarter than human beings, who I say are NOT searching for the truth, and as you can't prove that they are searching for the truth more than squids, that makes them stupider than squids.

Go Squid.

You know, most people go through a "greek philosophers are cool!" phase in high school. I think it has to do with that whole "I'm in the cave" thing. It's nice for a while, then you realize that the Socratic dialogues are all about one person presenting leading questions, and if the person Socrates had been talking to had asked smarter questions, Socrates wouldn't have sounded so smart. Kinda like Sherlock Holmes. Watson's inability to see what's important makes Sherlock seem smart. That's when Socrates and Plato and Aristotle (who believed that a heavy sphere would fall to earth faster than a light sphere, but never bothered to test it; Galileo did and proved him wrong, which goes to show that you really shouldn't believe anything that sounds logical but hasn't been tested to be true) lose some of their charm. You really should have moved on by now; Nietzsche if you're college age.

From your intellectual opinion, we should throw Socrates and Aristotelian logic out then? What would take the place Aristotelian logic? Logic is certainly not a triadic system of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis is it? Of course I only went to the 6th grade in school and only studied about the Pre-Socratic philosophers. You seem to know everything about Plato and all, go ahead and straighten me out on my definition of logic.

 

[Liar]

I agree with what you say here Liar but I am not the one threatened on this thread. I know what I believe. I can defend and support my beliefs without clinging to Jesus like a raft. Here on this thread the trolls are threatened and show it.

I was not talking about you specifically.

But that being said, you sure seem to feel the need to defend and support your beliefs. You don't see me trying to defend and support mine.

Because that goes against the very idea of faith. Rationalize it with supportive arguments and axioms, and it's not faith anymore, it's conviction. To do that to a belief is IMO to have weak sauce for faith.

 

[sadangel]

You must be a masochist to arrive at an insult from me on post 272 because I was stating the position in which I believe. It has nothing to do with you personally. Do you always fall apart like this when somebody offers a different opinion than yours? You are turning into a troll.

And you proved yourself a troll long before that post. You must be quite pathetic to keep posting every post made just to answer. Do you have nothing else to do? Perhaps take your meds? Or ask your mom and dad to get them taken care of, since you've already said you are a sixth grade girl. You continue to prove you are the troll. So.....enjoy.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Because of the accusations that I have used name calling, I have read all post in these threads. Would you please cite the thread where I called any names or stop your bitching.

Yes you are. You have all the makings of a good troll.

ahem..."Troll"????


So now that we have determined that you are full of shit...

Do you shave?

 

[wmrs2]

I admit I was wrong. You're a PSYCH 101 student.



Where are you from originally? I'm guessing somewhere pan-Asian, but that's just a guess. (It's invariably ESL folks who make the grammatical mistakes you're demonstrating, and you'll be pleased to note that I'm not assuming you're illiterate.)



I just love how you seem able to ascribe all these motivations, when, in fact, you're not logical. And I think you really ought to drink the poison, kid; you'd be a martyr then and we all know how beloved of God martyrs are.



Amazing. Absolutely amazing.

I have no idea of where to begin on this. It's more full of shit than a Christmas goose for the positive elegance with which it's jammed together.



Gee, I guess I fooled all my professors then, too.... Oh, wait, I wasn't talking about absolute forms per se. ~bzzzzt!~ You lose again, kid.



And now you'd tell me what I can and can't believe, eh? Or that I can't take 'your' beliefs? I have to say here, you've broken new ground; I'll give you that. I've met crazier Christian whackjobs and stupider Christian whackjobs and even crazier, stupider Christian whackjobs, but I don't recall anyone telling me that I wasn't allowed to have thoughts that they didn't approve of simply because they were reserved for some other religion. Bravo.

And what 'law' am I breaking? Here, how about this: I piss on your religious beliefs. You've got a right to have 'em; I'm just pissing all over them. That ought to be good enough to break your 'law.' Whatcha gon' do, kid?



I do so love how you claim to know all about atheists think when you have no direct knowledge of how atheists think. I'm reminded of the specials you can see every so often on the 700 Club or other Christian fascist channels about the 'real' story behind witches that then romp off into the same level of fantasies without any basis in reality.

Well, shoot, I can't think about it, then I can't think about, I guess. So, if I become a Christian, when do I get officially allowed to think all these things I can't think now?



A tautology like that is hardly proof. It's simply a tautology.



Who said this was a friendly discussion? I was really hoping to make my disdain for you crystal clear. I've obviously failed. And getting my subjects and adjectives mixed up? I'd love to see where. Let's see if I can make this grammatically correct and unambiguous:

You're a loser, a largely literate but not particularly functional little douchebag who seems to have latched on to the part of Christianity where you try to argue everyone into submission. It's something along the lines of "See, I am so smarter than you, therefore you're also dumb for not being a Christian like me." It's really rather pathetic, but hardly inspiring of sympathy. You're a fucking waste of life who probably spends a good deal of time being sinfully proud of your pseudo-accomplishments, which are measured in the number of people you've chased away when, in fact, you're just casually annoying. You're also a walking advertisement for why I think there are truly too many Christians running around loose and how nice it would be to teach them about the more material parts of what a commitment to your religion really means. But that's just the retired priest side of me talking: far too many laity think religion is a casual thing.

Now, you can diagram that if you like, or just fuck off; either suits me. Or you can damn me for my 'miss use' or being 'fool' of adjectives... but you really can't, because these are your faults. Hey, and my punctuation was even correct, which is far more than I can say for you.

You leaving soon? There'll be many a dry eye in the house when you're gone.

This is too good to pass up! You present no argument but make trait remarks. You know how to use obscene language better than I no doubt. You think that makes you smart. That 's fine. You do well at insulting people but that does not prove any point you are trying to make, if there is a point.

You make a statement that you say is one of my beliefs and attack it harshly. The fact is that you do not know what I believe and you have not opposed anything I believe with reason or with scholarly retorts. To use your terms, I don't give a rat's ass what you say. I am not here to please you or live up to your standards. In fact you have proven you have no standards so you can fuck off or stay around. I just don't see anything special about you to make me feel you know shit. All can see that you can't take it. When chips are down you fall back to your baser nature. Having fun yet?

 

[wmrs2]

This guy is both weird, and boring at the same time.

And his assertion doesn't make any sense-- even though he's said it over and over, it still doesn't make any sense.

If you have a better argument, let's here it. Troll on brother. Now that's weird.

 

[sadangel]

ahem..."Troll"????


So now that we have determined that you are full of shit...

Do you shave?

Now Safe..you know that sixth grade girls don't shave!! Be nice to the little girl.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Now Safe..you know that sixth grade girls don't shave!! Be nice to the little girl.

They normally aren't married and have kids, either!

 

[sadangel]

They normally aren't married and have kids, either!

I know!

 

[amicus]

"...you sure seem to feel the need to defend and support your beliefs. You don't see me trying to defend and support mine..."

~~~

Hello again, Liar, apologize if necessary, for picking out that part of your post to hightlight something else, but before that, a word or so of support for our intrepid interloper wmrs2, who, regardless of age or sex, has damned well taken on the forum and in my never humble opinion set most back on their hinies.

and now...I defend my particular set of principles on this forum because I feel the threat from the progressive left liberal agenda, here and elsewhere, to all I hold valuable. Recognize the threat or not, it is a concerted effort to overturn most of the primary values of civilization that western society has held dear for a couple thousand years.

I have no information as to wmrs2's motivation for defending her faith, but I suggest that 'she' has received shoddy treatment from many here and did little to deserve it. As evidenced from her replies to my posts, she seems willing to discuss or debate practically any aspect of faith and belief but is met, mostly, by some of the true embarrassments of the AH.

I suggest it is a prime example of how the 'usual suspects' on this forum treat anyone who dares differ with them. I know I have experienced it, but I am a tough old shit and accustomed to the depravity and the methods of the left from long experience.

So, wmrs2, you go, girl!

amicus...

 

[Liar]

Yes, ami. I too defend my convictions. My ideology. My philosophy.
With rational arguments based on verifiable data, common agreements and what I see as self evident premises. (or at least I try. If I succeed or if my premises are correct, is open fro discussion)

I, and many with me, don't defend faith in the same way. Faith can't and shouldn't be defended rationally. That's what makes it, you know, faith. And if you seek evidence and deuctive suport for your faith, it wasn't faith that you had.

 

[amicus]

Well said for the first part, Liar, second part, I quibble with...

"Defend the Faith", is a phrase I have heard before and I am certain the Crusades and all following religious conflicts felt that the faith need be defended.

One of the means by which I attempt to comprehend the viciousness of the left when I assault there moats of belief is to compare them to faith based believers who have invested both heart, soul and mind into an ideology. As with faith, to have that bastion breached, would be to destroy their fundamental premises and most likely cause them to be unable to function.

From previous experience I am sensitive enough to realize that demonstrating the falsity in the anti life group, can be traumatic to them. I have no wish to inflict pain on those who follow that ideology as a matter of faith and really do not comprehend that they are taking human life.

The second thing I have to say about your second paragraph is this: whether faith or philosophy or ideology, it is a 'way of life' that one is usually fully invested in and protecting and defending that way of life seems to me to be logical.

An easier subject is the environmental craze culminating in the global warming farce...even if irrefutable evidence were offered, they would not admit or accept it, it is so deeply ingrained in their belief system.

It is staggering sometimes to realize that these people really would adopt policies that meant starving half the population just to satisfy their ideology.

Sad, eh?

Amicus...

 

[past_perfect]

Pure you have listened too much to the rhetoric of the liberals. The Germans were not innocent in WWII and the Americans who went to war against them were not evil for killing the Germans. The free world that believed in God did not condone rape and murder although there were some that did these things. The Germans were evil because their belief in the superman was evil and the communist are evil today as is radical Islam today. If we don't kill them they will not think twice about killing us. I don't base this fact on the Bible but on reasoning. Once you give up reasoning you have lost it all.

Interesting - since my grandfather died in the war, having been drafted and sent to the Russian front line, he was evil? And my uncle and cousins living in the GDR after the war were evil also, because they lived under their then regime? Your world view must be comforting to you, or frightening, can't make out which, but to me it doesn't even make any sense, sorry.

And how do you bring these quick judgements under one hat with: Judge not that you not be judged?

 

[past_perfect]

Does this verse surprise you? Jn:10:34: Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

Different statement though, as for them it is the realisation of being part of God, or oneness, whereas the Bible quote would denote separateness. Btw, is it written in the OT? Must have missed that.

 

[amicus]

Not that wmrs2 needs any assistance or support, but your pov is an interesting one and fraught with questions.

Many of the activist liberals on this site claim the US is a criminal nation for its activities in both Iraq and Afghanistan, I don't buy that for a second, but still it allows me to make a comparison between what they claim and what people underwent in both Nazi and post Nazi Germany and in the Soviet Union.

Those that knew and had the means, left Germany after 'Crystal Night', as I have read as did many leave the graveyard of the Soviet Union since the communist take-over in 1917. They were still daring to escape even after the Berlin Wall went up.

There are more examples in the proxy wars of Korea and Vietnam as SEATO forces fought to resist the advance of international communism in Asia.

Millions of innocent people perished under the totalitarianism of Germany, Russia, Korea and Vietnam and that is truly a tragedy. But millions were saved from enslavement by the efforts of those who put into action the words of wmrs2.

I regret that anyone, your family included, had to live under such circumstances. To attempt to prevent that, the United States and Great Britain maintain forces in 150 countries in the world, acting when and as they can to curtail a recurrence of tragic events.

There are treaties and alliances around the globe of more than 40 nations who have agreed to defend free people from encroachment by aggressive nations and regimes.

It was hoped that an organization such as the United Nations would prevent further conflicts, it did not. Thus those free nations that can, act as 'policemen' to the world, an often-times thankless task.

Personally, I wish the western democracies were far more proactive than they are. While our military forces are still defending against Soviet made weapons, were I in command, I would search out and stop all who manufacture and sell weapons to terrorists within and without the middle east.

For what it's worth...

amicus...

 

[past_perfect]

Not that wmrs2 needs any assistance or support, but your pov is an interesting one and fraught with questions.

Many of the activist liberals on this site claim the US is a criminal nation for its activities in both Iraq and Afghanistan, I don't buy that for a second, but still it allows me to make a comparison between what they claim and what people underwent in both Nazi and post Nazi Germany and in the Soviet Union.

Those that knew and had the means, left Germany after 'Crystal Night', as I have read as did many leave the graveyard of the Soviet Union since the communist take-over in 1917. They were still daring to escape even after the Berlin Wall went up.

There are more examples in the proxy wars of Korea and Vietnam as SEATO forces fought to resist the advance of international communism in Asia.

Millions of innocent people perished under the totalitarianism of Germany, Russia, Korea and Vietnam and that is truly a tragedy. But millions were saved from enslavement by the efforts of those who put into action the words of wmrs2.

I regret that anyone, your family included, had to live under such circumstances. To attempt to prevent that, the United States and Great Britain maintain forces in 150 countries in the world, acting when and as they can to curtail a recurrence of tragic events.

There are treaties and alliances around the globe of more than 40 nations who have agreed to defend free people from encroachment by aggressive nations and regimes.

It was hoped that an organization such as the United Nations would prevent further conflicts, it did not. Thus those free nations that can, act as 'policemen' to the world, an often-times thankless task.

Personally, I wish the western democracies were far more proactive than they are. While our military forces are still defending against Soviet made weapons, were I in command, I would search out and stop all who manufacture and sell weapons to terrorists within and without the middle east.

For what it's worth...

amicus...

Well, it is a topic with many facets - apart from some idiots who deny historic truths, there is a sense of national guilt for what happened before and during the war, or allowing that to happen. There are quite a few who claim they didn't know what was going on - including some of my family members - considering that they were living in remote rural areas at the time, I won't preclude the possibility.

However, at the time there were only two options really - either you got drafted or deserted, in case they caught you then, you were summarily executed. The groups in the resistance were mostly the left (communists and social democrats) and Christians (isn't that just wonderfully ironic?), who were sent to KZs or executed also. So it's a rather interesting moral dilemma - resist and most likely be killed, or partake and be guilty by association. Let's assume not wanting to be killed is cowardly also, is it evil per se? Or, in wmrs2's terms, if you are not innocent, you are evil?

Have to run now, will continue later.

 

[amicus]

Past_Perfect...

"...Let's assume not wanting to be killed is cowardly also, is it evil per se? Or, in wmrs2's terms, if you are not innocent, you are evil?..."

~~~

You present, as intended, )), circumstances requiring precise moral guidance, at least in the thinking stage. Since you were called away, I will postpone commentary and invite your assessment of the options and the ethical ramifications.

regards...

amicus...

 

[past_perfect]

K then, back to where I left off.

There appear to have been two rather tough choices for those who had a clear knowledge of what was really going on (not as many as one might think, there were rumours about what happened to the Jewish people, but clear knowledge was more or less limited to either those who were involved in those atrocities, or people who were already in the underground), but anyone with a half-way clear mind should have noticed that invading neighbouring nations might not be overly ethical either. Well, before invading Poland, they at least fabricated an incident not unlike Tonkin in Vietnam, so officially the German Reich "retaliated".

In any case, I suppose to many it was a not even a choice they consciously made - your nation is in a war, so you go fight and if you fight, you fight to win. What you think about the ruling power, in that case a totalitarian regime with a charismatic madman as a figurehead is was certainly secondary, or, IOW - you would have had plenty of rationalisations that it was not criminal to partake in a criminal war. Like the definite threat from Russia (maybe it would please you and wmrs2 more if I used communist threat), and after the Allied Forces responded to the V2 with bombarding German cities and causing ever higher casualties in the civilian population, simply defending your family and country, apart from the readily available propaganda that brainwashed quite a few sufficiently also.

The right choice would still have been to resist, sabotage, desert, turn your weapons against the criminals, no matter what the consequences, even if that meant to risk your life. Some did take that choice. Most of them perished, but left us with the legacy that it is not just human to put self-preservation above everything else, but also that doing nothing, looking away, not listening, fighting for something that is not real, to do as one is told, makes one an accessory to murder, a criminal not much better than those who initiated and executed those atrocities.

I would like to think that I would have made the right choice in those circumstances, and considering my political orientation, I would have probably been either in jail, a KZ or the underground anyway. However, if that wouldn't have been the case or I had lived in similar circumstances than my family members, I had probably done nothing or "my duty" just as almost everyone else and been as guilty as everyone else.

Criminal (in varying degrees) yes, evil, no, unless you were amongst those who engineered and executed the genocide and the war.

Second scenario - living in the GDR. GDR troops never partook in any wars, the only people they shot were people trying to flee the country. They didn't really have much of a choice of how to politically orientate after the war, being occupied by the Red Army and all. Guilty by association? No. Obligated to resist? Maybe, but not really. Well, they eventually did, non-violently and successfully though. Evil? No way, not even the apparatchiks - criminals in varying degrees those were, certainly, but evil certainly not.

 

[Kev H]

Or perhaps not. As was stated so unambiguously in Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli from 1797, signed by John Adams (who ought to know) and approved by Congress (who also would've been around for everything), we're not a Christian nation:

"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; ...."

This was approved by unanimous vote of the Congress, only the third that had occurred at that time.

There are Christian revisionists who've been trying to drag in the idea that we were founded on Christian this or that, but it's more correct to suggest that we were founded on the freethinking of people like Voltaire.

A few days ago, my reading of this shocked me into doing some research. I'd have liked for this blatantly slanted post to be true: that mostly Christians had got together and decided the best course for the entire nation was to remove any Christianity from its founding. However, I have an open enough mind to want to know the relevant facts (truths with a small t).

Sad as it may seem to anyone who would want to take John at his word here, his post's conclusion is clearly untrue to anyone reviewing the evidence with an open mind. And shame on you, John, for pushing propaganda that has no true worth to anyone interested in the facts.

Many of the posts at this Wiki-talk link can help add substance--no need for me to recopy/revisit all that is covered (especially toward the bottom of the page); use your intellect to separate the facts from the opinions and the likeliest answer becomes clear: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Treaty_of_Tripoli

Bottom line: Like it or not, this country seems to have been founded by an overwhelming majority of Christians who had no interest in forgoing their Christianity for the comfort of a few. The founders were wise enough to want to base the governing bodies outside of the Christian dogma (a wisdom that is sorely lacking today in the neo-con/evangelical circles, among others).

This early treaty confirms (to a wary and potentially hostile Islamic country/region) the Government's desire to separate themselves from their personal beliefs, assuring the Musselmen that the USA was not interested in another Crusade-like conflict (oddly enough, this verbiage in the English version does not seem to appear in the Arabic version, though that has little bearing on the core argument).

Pointing erroneously to this one article of a treaty as supporting evidence against those "Christian revisionists" is an example of shameful tactics and serious pot/kettle issues.

 

[sr71plt]

ABottom line: Like it or not, this country seems to have been founded by an overwhelming majority of Christians who had no interest in forgoing their Christianity for the comfort of a few. The founders were wise enough to want to base the governing bodies outside of the Christian dogma (a wisdom that is sorely lacking today in the neo-con/evangelical circles, among others).

I find this paragraph internal contradictory.

Who are you identifying as "founders"? The ones we most often think of were nowhere close to being mainstream Christians and paid scant lip service to religion in anything they wrote--or any actions they took. If you followed the progression of most of the documents founding the nation from first to final draft, you'd find religious terminology being cut down to as little as they could get away with. The exceptions are the documents Thomas Jefferson wrote, which started out with minimal religious notation.

I've edited a book on George Washington--trying but failing pretty bad to establish he was a good Anglican/Episcopalian. The closest to religion he came, really, other than showing up to church four times a year to keep his Alexandria constituents happy was following Deist principles (A god created the whole shabang but then floated away to let his creation take care of itself). Most every other founder around was also at least a closet Deist.

One of the three things Thomas Jefferson was most proud of (and had carved in his tombstone) was the Virginia Statue of Religious Freedom--which is really a document of freedom FROM religion--at least from having someone else's religion forced down your throat.

If you could say the United States was founded on any principle connected with religion, it would be this--freedom from having someone else's religion forced down your throat. Most of the early waves of immigrants from Europe came to escape this pushing of someone else's relgion down their throats.

The founders of the United States were all about separation of church and state and protecting people from persecution by the religious. And many of the founders were Masons (look at what's still on the currency)--which is a whole freedom from religion movement in its own right.

And what is this monolithic "Christian" group you are talking about? The early "Christians" of the United States were a motley contentious collection of groups as divided from each other by their religion then as they are today--and in the Articles of Confederation days, the framers trying to reach a unity had to tippy toe very carefully around the issue of religion--There were various Puritan sects in New England that came because they were being persecuted and immediately turned around and persecuted the other, slightly dissimilar, groups that had come here for the same reason. Maryland was almost totally Catholic; in Virginia, just to the south of Maryland, Catholicism was initially outlawed--as was Anglicanism once we'd given King George the heave ho. John Wesley wasn't permitted to preach Methodism in Georgia and was quickly shipped home for trying to slip it in around the edges in his sermons there.

There never has been a cohesive "Christian" entity anywhere, let alone on the sunsetting side of the Atlantic.

 

[oggbashan]

...Many of the activist liberals on this site claim the US is a criminal nation for its activities in both Iraq and Afghanistan, I don't buy that for a second, but still it allows me to make a comparison between what they claim and what people underwent in both Nazi and post Nazi Germany and in the Soviet Union.

...

Evidence, please, Amicus? Where are the many who claim that the US is a criminal nation?

Some of the US's allies have had difficulty defending GITMO, Extraordinary Rendition, Abu Gharib... but that is a long way from claiming that the US is a criminal NATION. The then US Administration might have acted in a way that the US's allies wish it hadn't, international law (and the US's internal laws) might have been broken or bent but none of that makes a NATION criminal.

Og

 

[sr71plt]

Evidence, please, Amicus? Where are the many who claim that the US is a criminal nation?

Some of the US's allies have had difficulty defending GITMO, Extraordinary Rendition, Abu Gharib... but that is a long way from claiming that the US is a criminal NATION. The then US Administration might have acted in a way that the US's allies wish it hadn't, international law (and the US's internal laws) might have been broken or bent but none of that makes a NATION criminal.

Og

In my travels, I've found a few in the Middle East who do extend this to "Nation," but in Europe and Asia? No. I was always clearly hearing "the current administration" in those regions.

I rather doubt Amicus has been out to his street curb let alone anywhere close to the expressed views of "many."

 

[amicus]

You might find this interesting in light of the last few posts...the wiki piece is preceded by several caveats concerning accuracy for some parts of the article, but this general statement seems accurate compared to other sources.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian

Judeo–Christian (sometimes written as Judaeo–Christian) is a term used to describe the body of concepts and values which are thought to be held in common by Judaism and Christianity, and considered, often along with classical Greco-Roman civilization, a fundamental basis for Western legal codes and moral values. In particular, the term refers to the common Old Testament/Tanakh as a basis of both moral traditions, including particularly the Ten Commandments; and implies a common set of values present in the modern Western World. The values most commonly assigned to the Judeo–Christian tradition are liberty and equality based on Genesis, where all humans are created equal, and Exodus, where the Israelites flee tyranny to freedom

~~~

These ideas from the Hebrew Bible, brought into American history by Protestants, are seen as underpinning the American Revolution, Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. Other authors are interested in tracing the religious beliefs of America's founding fathers, emphasizing both Jewish and Christian influence in their personal beliefs and how this was translated into the creation of American institutions and character.

 

[freshface]

You know that I was not saying atheist were not normal. You intentionally make it appear as if I am bringing a personal insult to atheist. I am challenging the reasoning process of atheist. Your retort was not very intellectual or given in the spirit in which I offered my point of view. Your retort marks the end of conversation and the beginning of trolling. The thread is about why Americans do not like atheist. Here you have an example of a Christian atheist trying to accuse another person falsely. Why would I not dislike you?

Am I the only one who noticed the term "Christian atheist?" It makes me wonder what other words wmrs2 is creatively defining. Do you suppose that anyone who doesn't agree with her must, by her definition, be an atheist?