June 23, 2011

Hurt Feelings?

These days the atheists are acting very sensitive and whining about how their feelings are hurt because they glance at a cross or become offended because someone says the word God somewhere. Hogwash! Should we adjust our standards of living to accommodate their standards of living because these supposedly hyper sensitive people are offended?

Nope! Thankfully to God Almighty, the courts still have some sense to thwart these types of attacks  and the 7th Circuit dismisses the Atheists legal challenge to National Day of Prayer. What I found interesting in the finding is that just because their feelings were hurt DOES NOT mean its grounds for injury.

“Hurt feelings differ from legal injury,” the appeals court said in Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Obama.

This is on the heals of a street being named “Seven in Heaven Way

Christians certainly have to ride the buses with those offensive signs plastered all over that say "There's probably no God". I do not see the Atheists complaining that our rights are violated.  That gets me thinking though, if it was a deliberate act to remove rights of others, like these Atheists themselves are doing, there might be a case. We have more of a case then the Atheists because we are expressing ourselves, the Atheists are literally ATTACKING our expressions and freedoms. 

The valid point to be made here is that we might have to start suing everyone that is suing to silence our freedom of religion. Our rights are not being removed here as they were given to us by God Himself. Its our right to push back. Atheists have committed a crime against you by violating your rights. Atheists owe you for that. The Atheists took away your dignity for a time, your property, your feeling of safety in your own home, and they should suffer a just punishment for doing that, something that will deter them from doing it again.

Freedom OF religion, NOT freedom FROM religion.

The constitution was upheld yet again, great. But we are not out of the woods yet. This appellate court had to overturn the original ruling of U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb who ruled in April 2010 that the prayer day was unconstitutional because it amounted to a call for religious action. The courts did also rule on some crosses and Commandments in some public places so there is a good chance that the constitution will be overturned soon. God forbid. The problem is that soon we will have a new generation that will be in charge. Case in point:


Just look at how some of these local Fresno students, who support free speech mind you, foamed at the mouth to silence people because they disagreed with their own core viewpoints. Its pure hypocrisy. If asked if these people were atheists, I am sure most would say yes. Even if that position is unfounded at the moment, I would love to see that data that would probably confirm it. Maybe they did ask and I can find out. My point is that these kids are our future judges though. God help us all.

That is the problem here. The Atheists are claiming that just because feelings are hurt that ALL of society should adjust everything that conforms to their standard of living, even if that demand itself is offensive or hurt others feelings. They do not care if they themselves are offensive in practicing their religion, yet they want EVERYONE to conform to their beliefs of no God. Shhh, at least that is the goal. We all must understand that people do not foam at the mouth for something that does not exist. If they truly believed that God did not exist then why the fervor to squash the name, symbols, and writings? People do not fight, tooth and nail, against fictional beings. Where are the Santa lawsuits? God is real indeed. This is evidenced by the response by these Atheists.

As Christians, its our position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing Atheist's contempt toward God.

What also reveals the Atheists contempt towards God is all these lawsuits against his name and his followers. We must rebuke these religious bullies, called Atheists.

Will the Atheists do the same when they see a statue of Buddha out in front, on the side walk, as they walk into a Chinese restaurant? Of course not. Buddhism is an atheistic religion after all. Pure hypocrisy!

136 comments:

  1. Is it hypocrisy when a hypocrite points to hypocrisy in other people?

    Lol

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wem,

    Need a mirror professing Deist, who is an Atheist? ...lol

    ReplyDelete
  3. "If they truly believed that God did not exist then why the fervor to squash the name, symbols, and writings? People do not fight, tooth and nail, against fictional beings."

    If the Christians really believed that pagan gods didn't exist the wouldn't have destroyed temples, monuments and literature honoring pagan gods. People don't fight tooth and nail against fictional beings. I guess the pagan gods are real by this logic.

    ReplyDelete
  4. MaxFF,

    Touché but for arguments sake, if the first few Commandments of our religion was to not blasphemy or worship false idols and even God instructs us to destroy false idols, we have reason to destroy said idols. Do you have such a commandment in your religion? Is there a god that instructs you to destroy such things? Otherwise, your argument falls apart.

    ReplyDelete
  5. D.A.N,
    >> These days the atheists are acting very sensitive and whining about how their feelings are hurt because they glance at a cross or become offended because someone says the word God somewhere.
    I can’t speak for all the atheists but I don’t feel offended at all by seeing a cross or hearing the word “god”. The belief in gods and the worshipping of religious symbols are not part of my life, so they don’t upset me. They make no difference to me.
    >> Should we adjust our standards of living to accommodate their standards of living because these supposedly hyper sensitive people are offended?
    We – atheists - are supposed to adjust our standards of living to accommodate your standards of living because you (and most religious people) get all sensitive and butthurt over some harmless atheist bus ads, for example?

    >> Thankfully to God Almighty, the courts still have some sense to thwart these types of attacks and the 7th Circuit dismisses the Atheists legal challenge to National Day of Prayer.
    The National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional because your country is secular and that’s what it says in US constitution (and also on Brazil’s constitution) that no religion should be given preference over the others. In National Day of Prayer or it’s allowed from everyone (christians, muslins, hindus, jews, paganists,etc) to pray and worship their respective gods or his day is banned.
    It’s like in Brazil: a lot of courtrooms and city halls have crucifixes and images of Jesus all over the building. Do I feel offended by what they represent? No. But – since Brazil is a secular country and there’s no preference of one religion over the other we have two alternatives: or the government institutions put symbols who represents all the religions (the cross, the star of David, images of all the hindu gods, the symbol of Islam, the pentagram, etc) which is impossible or takes those christians symbols out. The place for those images representing their religious beliefs are churches and their homes where they can put an image of Jesus even above the toilet seat if so they chose.
    continues

    ReplyDelete
  6. cont.
    >> Christians certainly have to ride the buses with those offensive signs plastered all over that say "There's probably no God".
    You and your church have all the freedom in the world to express your beliefs and ideas. But atheists organizations have the same right to express their non beliefs and ideas. If you feel offended about it, that’s your problem. If I put a billboard in my town where it says “Probably there are no gods. Stop worrying and live your life.” - based on what our constitution says – is not considered a hateful/discriminatory message, so there’s no legal grounds for a religious institution to sue me and demand me to take the sign out just because they fell offended by it. It’s not like I put in the sign: “ Christians are gullible idiots”, for example. Because then they would have all the right to sue me, since is hateful message.
    I’ll tell you a story of what really happened here: there are 3 TV networks in Brazil which are owned by evangelical churches. Last year, in one of these TV networks, a TV news host was making some comments about some crimes and then he started saying this:
    1 - "someone who is atheist - in my modest opinion, has no limits. That's why we have all those crimes";
    2 - "the bandits who kill, that kill with pleasure, those don't believe in god also";
    3- "this is an typical example of a someone who doesn't believe in god: killed a 2 year boy, tried to shoot 3 or 4 people.";
    4 - associated atheists with raping a baby and an old lady and spanking an old man.
    ATEA – an organization which represents atheists and agnostics in Brazil – sent him a letter asking him to apologize for what he said. He didn’t and he even made his situation worse by making more discriminatory and hateful comments about atheists. ATEA then took legal action against him. Last week the judge decided at our favor. In july 22, the TV news host has to concede a right to answer. If the network disobeys this decision, it will have to pay almost US$ 7.000 dollars fine a day.
    Now, you say atheists are the ones offending you. We disagree in almost everything, but at least we never accused christians for being directly responsible for crimes just because you are christians.
    >> I do not see the Atheists complaining that our rights are violated. That gets me thinking though, if it was a deliberate act to remove rights of others, like these Atheists themselves are doing, there might be a case. We have more of a case then the Atheists because we are expressing ourselves, the Atheists are literally ATTACKING our expressions and freedoms.

    If I saw your rights to follow your religion being violated and if I saw a real hateful message against religious people I would complain about it for sure. I don’t agree with your religious beliefs, but I do respect your freedom to believe in whatever you want and to express your belief and no one should be have this freedom taken out. The same way we have the freedom to be atheists and to express our ideas.
    We are attacking your freedom of religion by simply saying we don’t believe in gods and creating awareness towards atheism? How come? We are not calling you names or personally insulting your family or the members of your church.
    Besides, we are not oppressing your religion. Besides, how come the majority (in this case, religious people) are being oppressed by the minority? It makes no sense.
    continues

    ReplyDelete
  7. cont.
    We are not trying to silence you. It’s quite the opposite. Religious institutions are the ones trying to silence us for throwing tantrums at atheists ads in bus and billboards demanding the ads to be put down. We don’t see religious people as threats, but you see as threats. And you have no reason to. We are not trying to convert you to atheism or anything like that. All of us can coexist despite our ideological differences. But it gets really difficult when you wants us silenced and - by preference – converted to your faith, even if it has to be done by force (which I’ve already saw it happening).
    For you D.A.N, freedom of speech is only valid when it agrees with your belief/religion/worldview. Those who disagree with you in those departments should just shut up. For you, freedom of speech is only valid for the majority and those who belongs to the minorities are not allowed to speak up.

    You act like your religion is immune to criticism, but is not. No ideology is immune to criticism. We are free to criticize your religion, the same way you are free to criticize atheism.

    It’s pretty hypocritical of you to accuse us from demanding believers to adjust to our standards (which is not true) when you are the ones doing that.
    Religious people accuse us from trying to convert them when they are the ones trying to convert us by any means necessary.

    I don’t go from door to door on a Sunday with Dawkins’ God’s Delusion and atheist flyers and magazines under my arm to try to convert believers into non believers. It’s not up to atheists to convert them and that’s not our goal.

    Religious people on the other hand wants to shove their beliefs down our throats even when we say we are not interested. Some of them even attack us when we say no.

    Real story: on a Sunday a couple of religious people came to my house and asked me if I wanted to hear the word of god and to learn Jesus’ teachings. I said I wasn’t interested, I was busy and didn’t have the time. They didn’t accept “no” as an answer and kept insisting and start reading the bible (if that is not pushing their beliefs down my throat, I don’t know what else is.). I – politely – interrupted them and I told them I was an atheist. It looked like I said I hit their mothers, because their reaction was as horrible as you can think of. They began to yell and scream at me in my doorstep, they called me names and they were very disrespectful and intolerant. For them – my atheism alone was a personal insult to them.

    Then, you have the nerve that we are the ones attacking religious people just because they chose to believe in a god and to have a religion which we don’t follow?


    >> We must rebuke these religious bullies, called Atheists.
    Sure, an evangelical Christian TV news host called us criminals because we don’t believe in gods; I was personally attacked by a couple of Christians because I told them I was an atheist; atheists in America and in other countries are bashed, treated with hatred, disrespect, prejudice and even violence by religious people of different faiths and then we are the bully ones? You’re kidding me, right?

    >> Will the Atheists do the same when they see a statue of Buddha out in front, on the side walk, as they walk into a Chinese restaurant?
    I don’t feel offended by the image of Buddha the same way I don’t feel offended by the image of Jesus, Vishnu, Thor, Venus, Iemanja, etc. , I have nothing against Buddhism – and is one of the few religions I really have respect for - because is a tolerant and peaceful religion.

    ReplyDelete
  8. D.A.N,

    >> Do you have such a commandment in your religion? Is there a god that instructs you to destroy such things? Otherwise, your argument falls apart.

    The reason atheists don’t go out destroying religious monuments and buildings and burning holy books and religious symbols is because – even though we don’t have those beliefs/don’t worship those religious symbols and don’t attend religious cults – is because is very intolerant, disrespectful and wrong to keep people from exercising their freedom of religion by worshiping religious symbols, by attending the religious cults and by reading their respective holy books. If we did this we wouldn’t be any different from
    - those fundamentalist muslins who destroyed the two statues of Buddha who had thousand of years;
    - from that Christian pastor who burned the Quran;
    - etc

    We don’t have “some imaginary god” saying we should burn the churches down and destroy their idols. Now – you on the other hand – follows a book which says non believers should be killed and believe in god who commanded Israelite soldiers to slaughter all the Canaanites because – according to your imaginary god – they were sinning by worshiping other imaginary gods. Even the poster boy of your religion Jesus said those who don’t follow and those who don’t want to be ruled by him should be killed.

    So, I don’t feel offended by religious images or the mentioning of the word “god”. Now, those religions which preach intolerance, hate, violence; deny human rights by endorsing violent acts against those who don’t follow their religion; don’t believe in their gods; have different opinions and worldviews different from what they preach; are connivent to hideous acts against human beings committed in the name of their faith; etc; that offends me big time and I have no respect whatsoever towards those religions.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mhich,

    >>Because then they would have all the right to sue me, since is hateful message.

    How many times have you called me names? How do you know those comments were not received as hate filled? Would you like to send me cash to settle for your hateful outbursts? Otherwise, hypocrisy much?

    >>If I saw your rights to follow your religion being violated and if I saw a real hateful message against religious people I would complain about it for sure.

    Yet you are fully OK with ATAH to squelch the opinion of a man. Freedoms, including speech, eludes you.

    >>I don’t agree with your religious beliefs, but I do respect your freedom to believe in whatever you want and to express your belief and no one should be have this freedom taken out.

    Wow, the rich hypocrisy is thick in here. Keep in mind that you just got done saying this:

    "He didn’t and he even made his situation worse by making more discriminatory and hateful comments about atheists. ATEA then took legal action against him. Last week the judge decided at our favor." (emphasis mine)

    Your side does NOT believe in free speech!

    >>The same way we have the freedom to be atheists and to express our ideas.

    That are hateful to Christians. Got it!

    >>We are attacking your freedom of religion by simply saying we don’t believe in gods and creating awareness towards atheism?

    NO! You are attacking our freedoms to practice our religion by saying we cannot bring awareness towards Christ!

    >>Besides, how come the majority (in this case, religious people) are being oppressed by the minority? It makes no sense.

    Oh yea, like the powerful 5% oppressing the majority of the middle class. No, that would NEVER happen! Are you for real?

    >>We are not trying to silence you.

    Said the person who supports ATEA to sue someone that says something. Amazing!

    >>For you D.A.N, freedom of speech is only valid when it agrees with your belief/religion/worldview. Those who disagree with you in those departments should just shut up. For you, freedom of speech is only valid for the majority and those who belongs to the minorities are not allowed to speak up.

    You have no clue as to how I feel and who I am. To me that was a hate filled comment because I volunteered and fought in the Military to fight to KEEP those freedoms for EVERYONE! It was a hasty generalization and a bare assertion just because I am a Christian. Where's my lawyer's number. :7)

    ReplyDelete
  10. D.A.N,

    >> Wow, the rich hypocrisy is thick in here.

    In any of my comments did I tell you “you don’t have the freedom to be a Christian and to exercise your religion”?

    >> Here’s what the constitution of my country says about freedom of speech: we have the right to freedom of expression. But if someone uses the right to freedom of expression to spread messages which incites hate/prejudice/violence against someone/social group it’s automatically considered crime of discrimination and/or hate crime. If someone uses the freedom of speech to make lying comments about someone else’s character (like accusing someone of being a criminal just because of difference skin color, different ideology, etc) it’s not only the crime of discrimination but also the crime of slander and defa¬mation.

    The judge decided at atheists/ATEA’s favor because the TV news host broke the law by making hateful and discriminatory comments besides committing the crimes of slander and defamation.

    >> Your side does NOT believe in free speech!
    It’s your side who doesn’t believe in free speech. As I said before For you (and I’ll include your religion) D.A.N, freedom of speech is only valid when it agrees with your belief/religion/worldview. Those who disagree with you in those departments should just shut up. For you (and I’ll include your religion), freedom of speech is only valid for the majority and those who belongs to the minorities are not allowed to speak up.

    I never – in anyway – said you can’t express your opinions; you can’t criticize atheism, etc. You can do that. You don’t have to agree with atheism, you can criticize atheism, I respect that and I don’t feel offended and all butt hurt because religious people criticize atheism. But freedom of speech works both ways: the same way religious people have the right to express their faith and have the right to criticize other ideologies; atheists have the right to express their ideas and opinions. You’ll never see me during a religious fest or cult holding a sign protesting and shouting You don’t have the right to exercise your faith! You don’t have the right to criticize atheism or any other non religious ideology!” If – one day – I see an atheist or a secular humanist or an agnostic doing that I’ll call him out on his bullshit because what he’s doing is not only disrespectful and intolerant but also illegal (our constitution also says Brazilian citizens are free to have any religious and non religious ideology without suffering oppression. Because if that happens this person is breaking the law.) The same constitution that protects religious people to exercise and express their faith without suffering discrimination and oppression also protects me and all non believers to exercise their non belief and express their ideas without discrimination and oppression.

    Now, if religious people don’t agree with my atheism because – in their minds – I’m offending them for not believing in their gods and being open about it, it’s their problem…not mine.

    continues

    ReplyDelete
  11. cont

    >> That are hateful to Christians.

    If you think being an atheist and creating awareness towards atheism is hateful to christians I don’t give a damn about it because that’s your problem, not mine. You are the one getting all butt hurt about it. I don’t feel offended by you exercising your freedom to exercise your faith, why should you get offended by me exercising my freedom to exercise my atheism? Because – according to you – is hurting jesus, god, my family and friends? I know a lot of Christians who don’t feel offended because I’m an atheist. They even say to me it’s very important to create awareness towards atheism so other religious people who don’t know anything about atheism stop seeing us as evil incarnate.

    >> NO! You are attacking our freedoms to practice our religion by saying we cannot bring awareness towards Christ!

    I never said christians can’t bring awareness towards Jesus. You can and you already do that. No one is taking that freedom away from you. You can put millions of billboards and bus ads creating awareness towards christianity all you want, be my guest. I won’t be offended by it. I might not respect your religion for reasons you already know, but I respect the freedom you have to express your belief. And if someone tries to take that freedom away from you that person is an intolerant idiot.

    >> I don’t know how the statistics in your country in the religion department is. But in my country, according to the census made in 2000.
    73,8% catholics*;15,4% evangelicals*; 7,4% non religious (agnostics, atheists and deists); 1,3% spiritualists*;0,3% African religions; 1,8%: JW, Buddhists, mormons, messianics, jews, esoterics, muslins and spiritualists. Putting christian religions and doctrines* all together: 90,5%
    Considering the only religions (catholics and evangelicals) that are openly against non religious people: 89,2% of religious people suppressing 7,4% non religious people. And considering evangelicals are also openly against African religions, you do the math. Unfortunately I don’t have the data about statistics in religion of 2010, because the institution responsible for the census (IBGE) didn’t put the question about religious and non religious ideologies. But according to IBGE, the number of evangelicals and non religious people are increasing and catholics are decreasing. But Christians are still the majority. In 2002 there were 125 millions of catholics in a country with 170 millions of habitants.

    >> Said the person who supports ATEA to sue someone that says something. Amazing!

    I do support ATEA taking legal action against that TV news host because he broke the law and his sentence was due to the law in the Brazilian constitution. If I saw an atheist or any other person saying – for example – all muslins are terrorists I would completely agree with the muslin community in Brazil if they decided to take legal against this person.

    >> You don’t agree with atheism ok…I can live with that. What you can’t do is:

    - suppress our right to disagree and criticize your religion and its dogmas;
    - taking our freedom to create awareness towards atheism just because you think is hateful to Christians;
    - shoving your belief down our throats even and trying to convert us though we are not interested. For argument’s sake: if one day I decide to become a christian (not bloody likely) I will look for a church myself. I’m a big girl and I don’t need someone to try to convert me, because it won’t work and it will be a waste of time, for both of us.

    PS: you didn’t fight for my freedom because we live different countries, so count me out on this one.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dan, we call you names because we keep catching you bullshitting us, even taking our own words out of context when you argue with us.

    What do you expect?


    You want hurt feelings? How's about when christians go nuts over those atheist bus ads?

    Ex) http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=74402

    Yeah. So much for free speech, indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  13. T i t for tat, huh? Neither side has irrefutable evidence for or against the existence of a god so just heat up more rhetoric.
    The people opposing this sign in fact walked into it and not many will argue that point, but the covering of such as a major accomplishment for Christianity lowers yourselves to the very same level and will win you no points unless your sole goal is preaching to the proverbial choir.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mhich,

    >>If I saw an atheist or any other person saying – for example – all muslins are terrorists I would completely agree with the muslin community in Brazil if they decided to take legal against this person.

    Then you DO NOT support any free speech. You obviously have no clue what the word "free" or "freedom" means. By PURE DEFINITION your views violates freedoms.

    Let me help you with a definition:
    free·dom/ˈfrēdəm/Noun
    1. The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
    2. Absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.

    You are delusional in your country with such laws. I am glad I am an American and, if I so choose, can say that "all Atheists are evil, because they're Atheists" without fear of being silenced. God bless America!

    Now, pretty please stop puking all over my blog and just get a blog of your own to comment on. You write too much without saying anything.

    Please, please, with sugar on top look up Argumentum Verbosium and then look into a mirror. :7)

    ReplyDelete
  15. pebblesthug,

    >>Neither side has irrefutable evidence for or against the existence of a god so just heat up more rhetoric.

    Erm, ‘irrefutable evidence’ also presupposes ‘logic, knowledge, and truth” care to tell me how you account for them according to YOUR worldview?

    ReplyDelete
  16. You can't do it with yours, Dan.

    As for logic, et al those aren't dependent on any worldview. If so, care to show just how they are?

    Christ, Dan...you've sure become irritating ever since you ran into Sye. Your replies all seem to consist of this kind of bullshit that you're spouting now.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  18. D.A.N,

    >> Then you DO NOT support any free speech. You obviously have no clue what the word "free" or "freedom" means.

    I do support freedom of speech when is used to express opinions and ideas which it doesn't offend others by making false assumptions (for example such as: all muslins are terrorists; all atheists are violent criminals; all christians are homophobic, etc) and spreading messages inciting hate and/or violence against others (for example a real story: a girl - who was a law student - posted on twitter that all northeasterners "are not people, do a favor to SP*, kill a northeasterner by drowning". She was sued for racism and for inciting homicide. She can take almost 6 years in jail for those crimes). Even if the brazilian constitution said anything is valid when is about freedom of speech, including hateful and discriminatory messages I would be completely against it because I don’t like hateful/discriminatory messages.

    Based on your concept of freedom of speech, do you think that girl was right to post that hateful message on Twitter?

    Now, how come me saying “I don’t believe in gods” and making an ad about it is hateful and discriminatory against christians?

    * SP is Sao Paulo - the capital of the Sao Paulo State.

    Now, putting atheist ads on billboards and bus creating awareness towards atheism is not a hateful/discriminatory message. It's just exercising our freedom of speech. The same way your church have the right to put ads with passages from the bible all over town, we have the right to do the same. Religious people and religious institutions can feel offended by it, but they have no right to silence us just because our opinions and ideas are different from theirs. Religious people have no right to yell at me in my doorstep just because I told them I was an atheist. If they don't agree with my atheism, fuck it...it's not my problem. And in my country is illegal.

    I bet if - for example - one host of that show Ask an Atheist made some hateful and discriminatory comments about christians, all the christian community would feel offended and they would take legal action against him. Tell me if I am wrong, but in that case you would be against freedom of speech at all costs; because when we criticize your religion and try to create awareness towards atheism is an personal offense against you; against your god and against your faith. But when SOME christians treat us with disrespect, hatred, violence, discrimination and personal attacks then you don't consider that to be an offense and a persecution against us. Again - tell me if I wrong - but it gives the impression that you think we deserve to be discriminated and that we should be silenced, always.

    Again - atheists are not wanting to take your freedom to be a christian; we don't want to take your freedom to exercise your faith/to pray to your god/to go to church/to spread religious messages. We just want the right to be atheists, to exercise our non-belief in gods and the right to show our opinions and ideas without persecution and oppression. Is it wrong to want that?

    (continues)

    ReplyDelete
  19. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  20. D.A.N,

    (cont)

    We had a military dictatorship in Brazil for 30 years. It was heavy because that government censured his own people on anything: we couldn't vote for president; they put bugs in our phones and opened our letters without the need of a judge's order; we couldn't show opposition to the government; we couldn't make protests against the military regime; police officers had all the right to invade people's houses and take people who they thought were communists and against the government to be tortured for days; people were arrested without being charged; the government prohibited songs, soap operas, books, plays, movies, magazines and newspapers, art shows and anything they thought was against the regime. A lot of college students and professors, priests, artists and journalists were arrested, tortured, exiled and some of them were killed for being openly against the government.


    Since that didn't happen to US, you don't know the true meaning of the word censorship. We brazilians value freedom a lot because we had our freedom taken from us for almost 30 years. But we also value such things as human rights, because we had our human rights taken from us for almost 30 years. Being oppressed and persecuted because of who we are/our opinions and our ideologies are/because of our race, naturality, gender, sexual identity, sexual orientation, etc, is violating our human rights. That's why our constitution protects all brazilian citizens against the crimes of racism, prejudice and the spread of discriminatory comments, the incitation of violence against us and the violent acts committed against us.

    Again, a real story: we have gay parades every year in a lot of brazilian cities in different states. The governor of Rio de Janeiro asked the military police to go in the gay parade to guarantee the safety of the people in the gay parade. There was this military police officer - whom is an evangelical - that got all butthurt about it. He said he didn't agree with the military police going to a gay parade to guarantee the safety of the people participating. His reason? Because the bible and his religion says homosexuality is a perversion; it's an abomination, it's against god, etc, etc. He's completely wrong. His job is to protect all brazilian citizens, despite their sexual orientation. In a nutshell: he works for us. We pay his salary through the taxes we pay the government to give us benefits such as health care, education and security which are guaranteed by the constitution. So - according to our constitution and according to the military police code he's breaking the law by denying us the right to be protected by the police. Does it mean he has to like gays? No. But he's not paid by the government with our money to preach his religious outdated dogmas. If he wants to preach, quite the military police and becomes a pastor. The he can preach his religious outdated dogmas to his followers in his church until he gets blue in the face.

    We have freedom of speech here, but it's illegal when people use that freedom to show prejudice and hate against others.

    D.A.N: our countries have different laws when is about freedom of speech. I don't agree with the laws in the US about it and you don't agree with the laws in Brazil about it. You can't change the laws in Brazil (thankfully, I might add) and I can't change the laws in US. So, just leave it that, ok?

    ReplyDelete
  21. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  22. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  23. D.A.N,

    >> Now, pretty please stop puking all over my blog and just get a blog of your own to comment on. You write too much without saying anything.

    You can't expect everyone who posts here to agree with you 100%; you can't keep people from criticize your religion and your opinions.

    Asking me "stop puking" on your blog and claiming I "write too much without saying anything" just because I disagree your opinions, criticize your beliefs and refute some of your claims is pretty childish.

    Not everyone will agree with you. Some people will be polite, others will be rude. It's a risk you to take when you decide to put your ideas out there for the whole world to read.

    Are you going to fly into a tantrum everytime someone hits your nerve?

    If you can't take the heat and feel easily offended by ideas contrary to yours - why continue with the blog?

    A blog is not only about showing your opinions; it's also about getting comments from people who think like you and from people who think different from you; it's about allowing debates between you and the people who comments here.

    If you don't like to receive opinions from people who think different from you and if you keep lashing out on them every time they disagree with you or show flaws in your arguments, then your blog lost a big part of its purpose and there's no reason to continue with it.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Michelle,

    >>Are you going to fly into a tantrum everytime someone hits your nerve?

    Not at all. You obviously did not look up Argumentum Verbosium. I welcome good arguments, I reject fallacious argumentation such as yours. Its an attempt to help YOU, not me.

    So I guess we can couple this:

    >>We brazilians value freedom a lot because we had our freedom taken from us for almost 30 years.

    With this:

    >>If I saw an atheist or any other person saying – for example – all muslins are terrorists I would completely agree with the muslin community in Brazil if they decided to take legal against this person.

    And call it ironic. :7)

    ReplyDelete
  25. Michelle,

    Now I am getting a kick out of ironic pictures, thanks!

    Do you like Alanis Morissette? :7)

    Have a great weekend.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Speaking of puking all over my blog:

    Count the number of "This post has been removed by the author." and "(continues)" from the same person. Get the irony yet? Whew!

    ReplyDelete
  27. D.A.N,

    >> The reason why I deleted comments is because there were typos on it and when I see a typo I delete the message to post it again with the typo corrected. Is that a problem for you?

    >> Why should I care about what Lindsay Lohan and Alanis Morissette have to say?

    >> The reason why I put (continues) is because we can type just a limited number of characters; you do know about the limitation of characters on comments in blogspot, do you?

    >> Again, D.A.N.: I would agree with taking legal action against discriminatory messages as saying "all muslins are terrorists"; "all christians are homophobes"; all atheists are criminals"; "northeasteners are not people and deserve to be killed by drowning", etc, because it's offensive and discriminatory. Obviously not all muslins are terrorists; not all christians are homophobes; not all atheists are criminals and the those who were born and/or live in the Northeast region of Brazil are people and they don't deserve to be killed in anyway.

    Making hateful/discriminatory comments about someone is illegal in my country. But the reason I don't agree with people saying and spreading hateful and discriminatory comments against others is not only because it's illegal It's more because it's offensive and insult those who are the target of the hateful message. If I saw an ad on my town full of hateful comments against christians (like "all christians are homophobes and bastards", for example) I wouldn't like it. If the christian community decided to take legal action against those who wrote that message and put it on a billboard or in a facebook or twitter page or anywhere I would agree with the christian community. I wouldn't be conivent to that hateful message against christians just because we have different ideologies. Even if spreading hateful/discriminatory messages were legal in my country, I wouldn't agree with it.

    On the internet and in real life I've already called many atheists out on their bullshit by making hateful and discriminatory comments against religious people for no reason.

    >> I reject fallacious argumentation such as yours.

    And I reject your fallacious arguments and I even go far by refuting them. And - by the way - if you mean "attempt to help me" by making me see the "truth of god's existence" and "accepting jesus in my heart" you are wasting your time. So, no help needed here, ok?

    ReplyDelete
  28. D.A.N and all those who post here, read this|:

    http://www.examiner.com/humanist-in-national/religious-bullies-target-nbc-christian-fury-concerns-secular-america?fb_comment_id=fbc_10150237514953077_16976747_10150239049818077#f33fe036ee77dd2

    we are the bullies and the opressor ones, right D.A.N? <-- insert sarcasm

    ReplyDelete
  29. Michelle,

    >>we are the bullies and the opressor ones, right D.A.N? <-- insert sarcasm

    A tad bias in your choice of evidence don't you think? Especially someone that prides himself that aims "to explore and expose religious bigotry, oppression and discrimination; to promote reason and eschew superstition and dogma." Of course he will be slanted in his writings. You are not fooling anyone here.

    Anyway, look at how we treated Christiana Arugula for fouling our national anthem up during Super Bowl 2011. We raked her through the coals. Were those all evil Christians too? Your bigot is showing, you might want to cover it up. Blogs were writing about it for days. So what? That is like omitting És belo, És forte, impavido colosso (you are beautiful, you are strong, fearless giant) from the Brazilian national anthem and expecting NO ONE to say anything about it. It was just an oversight that needed to be addressed.

    And besides, from what I read there were calls and letters, not all Christian organizations mind you, for an explanation to NBC. Is that wrong in your no free speech country? Plus when NBC found it out they apologized and said it was a mistake. No harm no foul. You need to expand your reading just a little bit more.

    Oh, instead of puking all over my blog AGAIN with large URL's, have some courtesy to link. I even gave you instructions as how to LINK to a story in the instructions above right after it says "Bring your "A" game." You can do it that way or use a URL shortner like bit.ly or Goo.gl. These actions of yours are grounds for removing your geek card. So be careful, you have been warned. :7)

    BTW, to answer your question, YES!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Dan:

         If I "said something" that was not true and which harmed your prospects of finding a job and being able to feed your family, I rather suspect that you would sue for slander. If I "said something" that caused you or members of your family to be wrongly imprisoned for years, I expect that you would be upset about it. It's called slander. And it is not protected by free speech.
         By the way, there is someone vomiting all over your blog. But he posts as "Debunking Atheists Nation." It's up to you whether you want to do anything about him.

         Reposted for typing errors. I understand Dan has a field day with that.

    ReplyDelete
  31. D.A.N,

    >> A tad bias in your choice of evidence don't you think? Especially someone that prides himself that aims "to explore and expose religious bigotry, oppression and discrimination; to promote reason and eschew superstition and dogma." Of course he will be slanted in his writings. You are not fooling anyone here.

    I put that article in your blog to make you see how hypocritical of you saying we are the bully and the oppressor ones when your Christian buddies got all offended and had a huge fit just because NBC took ”the under god thing from the pledge.

    Now, who’s the one who gets easily offended by others taking the name of their god out of the pledge? Me or you? I don’t get offended at all by religious people; because their religion makes no difference whatsoever in my life and they are not a threat to my atheism.

    For you, we are ”oppressing and bullying religious people for simply showing our ideas. But is not oppression, persecution, bullying and discrimination when is your religion who tries to shut up those who don’t believe in their dogmas/god by any means necessary <-- insert sarcasm here too

    Now, some christians have all sort of tantrums just because more and more atheists and agnostics are coming out of the closet and showing their ideas. You see as threats to your religious belief, why? The fact me and a lot of people don’t believe in gods makes no difference in your life, doesn’t affect you or your family in any personal aspect of your daily lives. You still wake in the morning and do what you usually do everyday, despite the existence of atheists.

    I’m not keeping you from going to church, reading your bible and praying/worshipping your god when I ask you not to waste time trying to convert me. In my opinion, the main reasons why you and some religious people (not only christians) feel offended by atheism because you think we are denying your god (even though we don’t believe in gods in order to deny them); because we don’t want to be part of your religion and follow their outdated (and some of them, dangerous) dogmas; because you act like your religion is immune to criticism when is not. The same way you have the freedom to disagree and criticize atheism, we have the freedom to disagree and criticize your religion. The same way you disagreeing and criticizing atheism is not going to keep me from being an atheist; me disagreeing and criticizing your religion is not going to keep you from being a christian (even because that’s not my goal)…don’t you think?

    I’m not generalizing anything. I never said all christians are intolerant or bigots. I’ve already met some intolerant christians who went ballistic at me because I’m an atheist and I because I said ”no” when they tried to make me follow their religion. But I’ve already met some nice and tolerant christians who don’t mind the fact I’m an atheist; they respect my non religious ideologies and we even have mature debates – without turning to personal attacks against each other and without them trying to convert me – about our different ideas and opinions. One of those christians is my best friend and she’s ok with my atheism; even though she believes in hell, she never throws at my face ”you’re going to hell for not believing in my god, so you have to repent and turn to jesus before is too late” threat. Do you know why? Because she likes me and loves me the way I am; our friendship is above our different ideologies.

    ReplyDelete
  32. D.A.N,

    Just a thought:

    If you think atheism and atheists are a threat to you and to your religious beliefs, it just means one thing: your faith is not that unshakable; a simple blow may throw to the ground all you believe in like your faith was a house made of straw only.

    ReplyDelete
  33. How much longer are we expected to wait for Dan's 'A' game? Seems to me he simply runs away from questions and then claims victory...

    ReplyDelete
  34. Whateverman,

    I guess D.A.N has chess player pigeon complex: he knocks down all the pieces, shits all over the board and flies away crying victory, lol

    ReplyDelete
  35. Mhich, Michelle, Bellcheries...,

    >>The fact me and a lot of people don’t believe in gods makes no difference in your life, doesn’t affect you or your family in any personal aspect of your daily lives. You still wake in the morning and do what you usually do everyday, despite the existence of atheists.

    You're kidding right? Our society, because of atheistic influences, have murdered over 50 million babies, "secularized" our public schools systems and universities and science, and invaded science to search for ONLY evolutionary evidence, another atheistic influence. One can say they're parasitic. You're sorely mistaken to think atheists do not affect society as you're claiming. Just look at Stalin, Mao, Pot, Ill, Castro, and other atheistic regimes, they're dangerous!

    >>I’m not keeping you from going to church, reading your bible and praying/worshipping your god when I ask you not to waste time trying to convert me.

    You obviously have not read one on my first posts here. Atheistic regimes are infiltrating, make no mistake.

    >>If you think atheism and atheists are a threat to you and to your religious beliefs, it just means one thing: your faith is not that unshakable; a simple blow may throw to the ground all you believe in like your faith was a house made of straw only.

    If you think that I will stand idly by while for example some group of nuts want to legalize pedophilia, or take hard working American's money, or blaspheme God, you're a joke. Its my world too. I will fight for the right things in life. Its for my kids sake, not my religion's. I will NOT stand Idly by while the evil infiltrate and take over. I am a soldier, I will fight for the innocent's sake. Its also my religion's position to FIGHT evil! So, once again, you're wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Wem,

    >>How much longer are we expected to wait for Dan's 'A' game? Seems to me he simply runs away from questions and then claims victory...

    Any evidence for your bare assertion?
    Hypocrite much Deist?

    ReplyDelete
  37. D.A.N,


    >> You're kidding right? Our society, because of atheistic influences, have murdered over 50 million babies, "secularized" our public schools systems and universities and science, and invaded science to search for ONLY evolutionary evidence, another atheistic influence.

    Where is your evidence that atheism killed 50 million babies? If you mean by abortions; they don’t count, because is not infanticide. Abortions are surgical procedures where they remove an embryo (which is just a bunch of cells uncapable to think, have emotions, feel pain, etc, because an embryo doesn’t have a brain fully developed like a fetus after the 6th month of pregnancy). Abortion is not like shooting a 3 year old in the head.


    >> You're sorely mistaken to think atheists do not affect society as you're claiming. Just look at Stalin, Mao, Pot, Ill, Castro, and other atheistic regimes, they're dangerous!

    So Christianity is also dangerous, after all Hitler believed in god and he was a catholic. Look on the internet discourses made by Hitler, his book Mein Kampf.

    Ex: 1. - "We demand freedom for all religious confessions in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or conflict with the customs and moral sentiments of the Germanic race. The party as such represents the standpoint of a positive Christianity, without owing itself to a particular confession...." - Article 20 of the program of the German Workers' Party (later named the National Socialist German Workers' Party, NSDAP)

    2 - . “I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.” - Adolf Hitler, to General Gerhard Engel, 1941

    3- “As long as leadership from above was not lacking, the people fulfilled their duty and obligation overwhelmingly. Whether Protestant pastor or Catholic priest, both together and particularly at the first flare, there really existed in both camps but a single holy German Reich, for whose existence and future each man turned to his own heaven.”- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 3

    4 – “My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. ...Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. ...” - Adolf Hitler, speech on April 12, 1922

    Hitler wasn’t a nazi dictator in the name of atheism or even Christianity. He did what he did for political reasons. The same way Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao did those horrible acts for political reasons, not in the name of atheism.

    But Hitler considered the supremacy of the arian race as divine mission/god’s will: “I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.” - Hitler, speech before the Reichstag, 1936

    (continues)

    ReplyDelete
  38. (cont)

    >> Atheistic regimes are infiltrating, make no mistake.
    Secularism is not the same as atheism. In a secular country, there’s a clear separation between religion and state and no religion has preference over other religion or non religious ideologies.

    Praying in public schools and putting symbols of certain religion in public buildings is unconstitucional in US (and also in Brazil). I studied in public schools my entire life – because of our constituition – we didn’t have prays in school and in our graduation ceremonies. Unfortunately, in our public buildings we have Christian symbols, like the cross and the images of jesus. I don’t feel offended by what they mean to Christians, but it’s against the constitution. Our city hall has two choices: or put symbols of all religions (which is quite impossible) or take those christians symbols out.

    An example of how Brazil is secular: our mayor is a former priest. He wanted to candidate himself for the city hall and he had to quit with being a priest, at least during his mandate. During his mandate he can’t perform religious ceremonies because if he does that, his mandate can and will be revoked.

    >> If you think that I will stand idly by while for example some group of nuts want to legalize pedophilia, or take hard working American's money, or blaspheme God, you're a joke.

    Legalize pedophilia? Really? The priests who rape the altar boys are not atheists; in muslin theocracies where 12 year old girls are forced to marry and have sex with men old enough to be their father or even grandfather are not “atheist countries”.. Some mormon communities in US where young girls are forced to marry older men are not ”atheist communities”.


    >> Its my world too. I will fight for the right things in life. Its for my kids sake, not my religion's. I will NOT stand Idly by while the evil infiltrate and take over. I am a soldier, I will fight for the innocent's sake. Its also my religion's position to FIGHT evil! So, once again, you're wrong.

    Your religion is so good and peaceful…(sarcasm)…It was a Christian religion responsible for the crusades, for the persecution against jews, for the inquisition, for the Spanish inquisition; a Christian religion was conivent to the nazi regime; a lot of homosexuals are tortured in some countries in Africa because some your religious missionaire buddies spread that homosexuals are sodomites, child rapists, perverted people, etc. In those countries some kids are tortured and killed because those new born African Christians think they are witches wonder where did they take that from…

    Lesbians in those same African coutries are punished by correctional rape. Yes, they are gang raped and beaten for hours on end in order “to cure their homosexuality”. Again, where do you think those gang rapists took the idea homosexuality can be ”fixed, cured”? Was it from atheists or from christian missionaries?

    (continues)

    ReplyDelete
  39. (cont)

    There are other religions who commite awful acts and declare wars and terrorsit attacks in the name of their god, but the religion in discussion here is christianism.

    Now, name one situation where atheists accused people of witchcraft and burned them? When atheists gang raped a lesbian in order to “cure her”? When atheists declared war against other nation in the name of atheism? Were we responsible for some inquisition during the Middle Age?

    I respect the freedom to believe in whatever you want, but I don’t respect your relgion (and some other organized religions) because they violate human rights in the name of some their dogmas; they spread violence, intolerance, ignorance and hate. Religions do some good things, but the bad actions outcome the good ones.

    So, it’s not the mention of the word “god” that offends me. It’s not what you belief that offends me. It’s what you (and some other religious people) do with what you belief that worries and offends me.
    It’s my position as an human being not to agree with the evil your (and other religions) bring to the world by hurting other humans because they don’t believe and don’t live according to your Christian worldview and “ morality and it’s in my position as human being with free will and freedom of expression to show my disagreement, to protest and criticize the wrong/evil actions some people do in the name of their religion/their god.


    Ps: It’s thanks to science you can take your kids to the hospital when they get sick; it’s thanks to science that you have vaccines to protect you and your family from some diseases; it’s thanks to science you have electricity to use your computer in order to get in the internet so you can write on your blog. It’s thanks to science you can drive your car, cook your food, wash your clothes and dishes, you have a buiding over your head when you’re going to pray; it’s even thanks to science you have your holy bible, imagine that!!! Even your body is pure science. Chemical reactions and principles of physics - discovered by scientific studies and experiments - allows your body to function...how cool is that!! Like it or not, science is all around you and you can’t escape from it (unless you want to live like you were on the bronze age, when your bible was written)

    ReplyDelete
  40. Dan dismisses science only as far as it shows his beliefs to be ridiculously flawed. Beyond that, Dan fancies himself a technophile.

    Imagine that.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Michelle,

    What part of Argumentum Verbosium do you not understand? *sigh

    ReplyDelete
  42. Wem,

    >>Dan dismisses science only as far as it shows his beliefs to be ridiculously flawed.

    Do you want to see what "science" I reject? Just go watch Fat Head and it will be extremely clear.

    ReplyDelete
  43. D.A.N,

    And what part of ”not being a hypocrite” you didn’t understand? You are accusing us of doing to you and to your religion what you and some religious zealots do to atheists all the time.

    You are the one who get offended over harmless atheist ads in billboards and bus and then you claim we’re the ones who get offended by the mentioning of the word “god”?

    Yes, sure…christians mentioning the name of their imaginary father is so frightening, insulting and menacing to me that I can’t even sleep at night and I can’t barely function on a daily basis <-- insert sarcasm.

    Answer me those questions:

    - How a secular country harms you? (remember that is thankfully the fact USA is a secular country that you can exercise your faith without oppression)
    - An ad saying “Probably there are no gods” keeps you from going to church to worship your god? Does it keep you from praying to Jesus and read the bible? Does it keep you and your family to do the thing you usually do everyday?
    - Why the fact of being an atheist offends you? How come the freedom I have from not agreeing your religion and having the constitutional right to show my disagreement bothers you? All of those things keep you from going to church to worship your god? Does it keep you from praying to Jesus and read the bible? Does it keep you and your family to do the thing you usually do everyday?
    - For argument’s sake: USA becomes a christian theocracy, would you force all non-christians and all non-believers to believe in god and to convert to christianity? Would you prohibit people to question your god/religion/bible? Would you prohibit people from criticizing your religion? What would you do with those who refuse to be converted and with those who continue to disagree/to criticize your religion?

    PS: your freedom ends when other people’s freedom start and vice-versa. You have all the freedom in the world to believe and worship your god, to spread christian messages, to criticize those ideologies and religions you don’t agree with. But we have the same freedom to be non-believers, to criticize the religions and ideologies we don’t agree with. Just because you don’t agree with atheism, it doesn’t give you the right to suppress our freedom of speech and our freedom to spread awareness towards atheism.

    As I said before, if atheism offends you that much it means your faith is not that unshakable and your belief is not that strong.

    If you are personally offended by atheism, secularism, humanism and scientific facts who show how flawed and inaccurate your religion really is, it’s your problem not ours. Ok? ; )

    ReplyDelete
  44. Dan:

         I have seen you be just as verbose. And I see no reason to conclude that Belle's verbosity is unwarranted. To shorten her argument would be to render it incomplete. Furthermore, she is not claiming that she is right merely by virtue of the fact that she uses many words. Your charge is without merit.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Dan, would you care to explain just how those bus ads that say "There is probably no god" is offensive? Would you mind giving us an example then of an atheist message that you would NOT find offensive?

    Good grief. We've had to put up with xian billboards and shit for years. The instant atheists start doing the same thing, shit like this and Dan's whining happens.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Pvb,

    >>Your charge is without merit.

    Its not a charge but a plea. I am just wishing it were, a tad tighter and to the point. I understand some discussions get involved. She is helping me with my patience. Here I thought the 5 kids here would do that. Who would of thunk.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Michelle,

    >>You are the one who get offended over harmless atheist ads in billboards and bus and then you claim we’re the ones who get offended by the mentioning of the word “god”?

    Please show evidence for that. I remember wanting to fight back, but offended? Show me the evidence. Have you read all the names that you and Reynold have called me? I don't easily get offended, I get focused.

    >>How a secular country harms you?

    If its oppressive? Plenty

    >>remember that is thankfully the fact USA is a secular country that you can exercise your faith without oppression

    You have NOT read ALL 50 of of our States Constitutions have you? They do not sound as if Atheists were in charge.

    Have you even READ our Declaration of Independence?

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

    Atheist would NEVER have given such rights, evidenced by this post.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Seriously, when someone vandalizes an atheist ad those christians celebrate and praise the lord for "teaching those atheists a lesson.

    But if someone vandalized one christian ad, I bet they wouldn't like it. It's like is said in Brazil: pepper in somebody else's ass is a refreshment. Those christians would be all over us (they wouldn't even care about proving if it was an atheist or just some kid who did it).

    PS: I don't agree with vandalizing. I would never aprove the actions of someone who has nothing better to do but vandalize churchs or any other religious stuff; it doesn't matter if that someone is an atheist or not.

    ReplyDelete
  49. D.A.N,

    >> Me: How a secular country harms you?

    D.A.N: If its oppressive? Plenty

    A secular country is oppressive? How come? A secular country is not oppressing you or your religion, D.A.N. In a secular country no religion has preference over other religion and over non religious ideologies. In a secular country, no religion meddles in the government’s business. The only reason why you are free to believe in your god, to be a christian, to go to your church to pray and worship your god without being oppressed is because USA is a secular country.

    If you really want to know what oppression really is, go live for an year or so in a muslin theocracy and then you – as the being the religious minority there – will see how religious oppression really is. If you manage to get out of there alive, when you go back to US you’re going to thank your god for USA being a secular country.


    >> In nowhere in the Declaration of Independence and in the constitution of your country says USA is a christian nation.

    Again, atheists are not prohibiting you or any other religious people to exercise their faith and worship their gods. That’s not our goal. The only things we want are: having separation between religion and state; no teaching of creationism/ID in public schools (if you want to teach that to your children in the privacy of your home, it’s your right…I won’t keep you from doing that); freedom for everyone in terms of religious belief and also non religious ideologies, etc.

    Now, really answer me: all that keeps you from going to church, reading the bible, worshiping your god, praying to Jesus?

    The only reason why you think you’re being oppressed is because more and more people are assuming their atheism and starting to fight for their rights to be atheists. We are only exercising the freedom we have to show our point of view; we are not trying to convert anyone to atheism.

    For you, USA and all the countries in the world should be christian theocracies. If you want to live in a christian theocracy, move to the Vatican.

    >> You still didn’t answer me this:

    For argument’s sake: USA becomes a christian theocracy, would you force all non-christians and all non-believers to believe in god and to convert to christianity? Would you prohibit people to question your god/religion/bible? Would you prohibit people from criticizing your religion? What would you do with those who refuse to be converted and with those who continue to disagree/to criticize your religion?
    By claiming you’re being “oppressed by secularism and atheism” already proves my point you feel offended and all butthurt about it. Your christian messages, symbols and cults don’t offend me at all. There are dozens of christian churches in every corner in my town and I don’t feel oppressed and offended by the simple fact they are there. My mother is a new born christian and in no way I feel oppressed and offended by her and her prayers.

    My entire family is catholic and I don’t feel oppressed and offended by them.

    What you believe doesn’t offend me at all. What worries me is what you do in the name of what you believe. But I doubt that alone keeps you from believing in your god.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Dan
    Please show evidence for that. I remember wanting to fight back, but offended? Show me the evidence. Have you read all the names that you and Reynold have called me? I don't easily get offended, I get focused.
    No, you just start dodging.

    I call you names because they describe you and how you act. You defend god-ordained genocide, you're fundamentally dishonest and when called on it, you play the victim.

    As for being offended, should I quote what you said earlier in this very post of yours about how you find the atheist bus ads "offensive"?

    You haven't answered my question about what atheist message you'd find non-offensive if you find "There is probably no god" offensive.

    As for whether the States are a christian nation, Treaty of Tripoli, plus the Federal constitution.

    You can do more reading here.

    ReplyDelete
  51. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  52. D.A.N

    >> Have you read all the names that you and Reynold have called me?

    There was a reason why people called you names. I can't speak for Reynold, but my reason was you were being dishonest.. And - as Reynold said on his last comment and I agree with him - you played the victim when we called you out on your bullshit

    >> I don't easily get offended, I get focused.

    Yes, you do get focused in dodging the question and twisting our words.

    >> Another proof that you fell offended by us (you think we are "evil")

    "I will fight for the right things in life. Its for my kids sake, not my religion's. I will NOT stand Idly by while the evil infiltrate and take over. I am a soldier, I will fight for the innocent's sake. Its also my religion's position to FIGHT evil!"

    PS: Funny, I thought there were no innocents according to your christian worldview...

    ReplyDelete
  53. Reynold,

    >>Dan, would you care to explain just how those bus ads that say "There is probably no god" is offensive?

    Objection! Leading the witness. I never said it was offensive. Like I said I do not get offended, I get focused.

    >>Would you mind giving us an example then of an atheist message that you would NOT find offensive?

    Pretty much all the cursing, and blasphemy, that you have done towards me and God. Cursing, blasphemy, and lying is an offense to God. You will have to deal with Him on that.

    ReplyDelete
  54. D.A.N,

    >> Pretty much all the cursing, and blasphemy, that you have done towards me and God. Cursing, blasphemy, and lying is an offense to God. You will have to deal with Him on that.

    Wow!!!First of all, we don't care about cursing and "blasphemy" towards your god, because we don't believe in your god to begin with...so there's no use in saying your usual empty threats.

    Second: Acording to what you believe, since you are only accountable to your god, you are the one that will have to deal with him later...after all you are disobeying your own god's commandment by bearing false witness against your neighbour aka lying.

    ReplyDelete
  55.      "Objection! Leading the witness."
         Overruled. The witness may answer the question.
         "I never said it was offensive."
         "with those offensive signs plastered all over that say"
         Oops. It looks like you did.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Pvblivs beat me to it. Busted, Dan. Your habit of lying is catching up to you, again.

    ReplyDelete
  57. @Pvblivs: you caught D.A.N on his lying, congratulations for bringing your A game!!!

    @D.A.N: I want to see how you will dodge that one now. Will you tell Pvblivs that "how something can be offensive in your worldview?" or "how come being offensive is wrong in your worldview?" bullshit?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Pvblivs,

    "with those offensive signs plastered all over that say"

    >>Oops. It looks like you did.

    Touché, I did say that. Hmm

    >>The witness may answer the question.

    Fine, I will

    >>Dan, would you care to explain just how those bus ads that say "There is probably no god" is offensive?

    Its offensive if they are wrong, they are hand holding people to hell.

    Mainly its offensive by mere definition:

    Noun-
    2. An organized and forceful campaign to achieve something, typically a political or social end

    Adjective-
    3. Actively aggressive; attacking
    4. (of a weapon) Meant for use in attack

    ReplyDelete
  59. Michelle,

    >>after all you are disobeying your own god's commandment by bearing false witness against your neighbour aka lying.

    As you KNOW, your claim is a blatant LIE in itself. I have not lied as explained ad nauseum. By merely repeating the claim will never make it true. Your argument is fallacious and you KNOW that too.

    ReplyDelete
  60. So Reynold et al,

    >>Your habit of lying is catching up to you, again.

    Its not personally offensive to me, its just offensive by definition. To claim that I am lying is wrong. I have and do make mistakes. When called out, I correct said mistake (as I have in the past). I thought this was a discussion of personally offensive, or that is what you were driving at, but I forgot what I wrote. Thanks to Pvblivs I can restate my meanings. I have YET to see a lie in this conversation. That is not to say I DO NOT lie, because I certainly have. I am am a filthy, wretched, sinner after all.

    ReplyDelete
  61. D.A.N,

    >> Its offensive if they are wrong, they are hand holding people to hell.

    Those signs about the rapture were wrong too and I didn’t feel offended by them. It was even funny and amusing seeing them specially with that big yellow seal written “The Bible guarantees it!”

    How come signs saying ”You can be good without God”, “You know it’s myth” during December holidays (which are aimed to atheists and agnostics in the closet, not to religious people) are offensive?

    If you don’t like it, fine…just ignore it.

    How come a sign “Probably there are no gods” could be offensive?

    Really? If I saw a sign saying ”Probably there are gods or “God is real” I wouldn’t feel offended. I would never make a tantrum and start demanding to take those signs down or even low myself to the point of vandalizing them (just like it happened to some billboards with atheist messages on US) just because “it offends me” or “it offends my atheism”

    The only reason you feel offended is because it goes against what you believe, that’s it. The atheist organizations who put those ads were not trying to force atheism on you or convert you to atheism or even keeping you from going to church. So, stop acting like a spoiled 5 year old who didn’t get his chocolate bar.

    In my country, there are christian TV shows, ads with religious messages, ads about their cults and parties they organize and I don’t get offended them. In case of christian TV shows I just don’t watch them, in the case of cults I just don’t go; I even went to a party organized by a catholic church (to help the retirement home in my town and for the ice cream… I paid 5 bucks once. I was helping the retirement home and I could eat as much ice cream as I wanted…it was awesome, I had fun, I met new people and - better yet - no preaching involved.)

    >> As you KNOW, your claim is a blatant LIE in itself. I have not lied as explained ad nauseum

    You lied and you were dishonest by twisting our words. You kept doing it even after you called you out!


    >> Noun-2. An organized and forceful campaign to achieve something, typically a political or social end
    Adjective-3. Actively aggressive; attacking
    4. (of a weapon) Meant for use in attack

    Considering the definition you gave here; religious signs can be considered offensive and disrespectful when their message is about forcing christianity on others. It also can be considered offensive when evangelical comes to my house in order to convert me, specially when they don't take "no" as an answer and keep pushing and pushing it...

    ReplyDelete
  62. Michelle,

    >>So, stop acting like a spoiled 5 year old who didn’t get his chocolate bar.

    You do understand you said this to the guy why said Atheists eats babies, right?

    I understand that by its nature alone we are going to be offensive to each other. The subject ALONE demands it. What is the motivation is the key question though. If you're doing something that can literally send people to hell, then your motives are evil. If you are trying to save people from hell then those motives are OK. Atheists have NO grounds to counter Christians that is not offensive and dangerous behavior. UNLESS they can claim knowledge to the existence of Hell. Of course, they cannot have such knowledge therefore its evil to counter Christianity. (my blinders on being noted)

    >>You lied and you were dishonest by twisting our words. You kept doing it even after you called you out!

    IF, big if, you consider hyperbole and parables as lies then yes, I lied. Otherwise you have NO BASIS to say I lied. It was a conversation that I added some points. Points that was not targeting you directly but in a general sense. You know this, because I said this. IF you keep saying I lied in this conversation, then its you who is a liar. Let me guess, you will say something (because of your own dishonesty) like, "see, you said you lied" in some quote mining expedition. Tisk tisk, unethical Atheist.

    ReplyDelete
  63. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  64. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  65. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  66. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  67. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  68. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  69. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  70. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  71. D.A.N,

    (it’s Michelle)
    >> You do understand you said this to the guy why said Atheists eats babies, right?

    Seriously, D.A.N? Why did you show me that? To try to make me realize how I’m a horrible person for being an atheist? Sure, making an analogy of atheism with eating babies really worked and I’m truly converted. <-- being sarcastic…

    You do know that the page on Facebook you put on that post of yours is sarcasm, right? They put your blog in there to make fun of you, lol. Here is the description:
    - “A take off on the clichés those creationists create about atheists^^ Ha ha.
    - “A take off on those creationists. Its funny how they mistake atheism with satanism. Also I never heard of any satanists eating babies^^”

    I guess you don’t see sarcasm even if hits you the face. I should’ve been surprised, some christians have no sense of humor, specially when is sarcasm.


    >> I understand that by its nature alone we are going to be offensive to each other.

    Considering your religious belief alone, you’re not offensive to me at all. You give your religion too much credit. So what if your bible considers me a sinner for being an atheist and a sodomit for me being bisexual? Your bible has no ruling in my life…being offended over a really old book written by desert dwellers said, it just doesn’t happen. Telling me I’m going to hell for being an atheist and creating awareness towards atheism is “sending people to hell, me included” is an empty threat and doesn’t cut it. In order for me to believe in a hell you have to bring me compelling and verifiable evidence (without mentioning your bible and personal experience or revelation). If you don’t have any or don’t want to show me I don’t have to believe you just because you told me. You don’t have knowledge of your hell either. All you have is wishful/magical thinking.

    Christianity is a religion followed by people. People are flawed and being Christians don’t make them a role model for righteousness. As I pointed out to you how many bad things were done by human beings in the name of your religion (read the two last paragraphs) : text

    You are the living proof of what I’m saying: you think is justifiable to kill people in the name of your god just because they did the ”horrible sin” of worshiping other gods or being non-believer like me. If you think I’m dangerous because I’m an atheist and I spread awareness towards atheism, I think you are dangerous by agreeing with people deserving just because they don’t believe in your god. You are the one who agrees with genocide when is ordered by your god and you try to sugarcoat saying is actually “capital punishment”. It doesn’t cut it.
    (continues)

    ReplyDelete
  72. (cont)

    You are the one who said in one of your comments about stoning your children. I’ll quote: “I actually used those verses on my oldest (23) as a warning and he said "I am all ears... I don't like getting stoned anymore" Get it? I thought that was a witty double entendre. The OT still stands and will be the law after Christ's second coming. We better get used to them. Sin will not be tolerated when that happens. From my experience, a threat of stoning seems to do the trick, so...”

    Based on that, I consider you to be a very dangerous person.

    For argument’s sake: your god tells you through a personal revelation that I’m a non believer and I should be killed. Would you kill me because your god told you so? (please, don’t come with that “my god would never ask me that” because – according to your bible – he already did by asking the Israelite soldiers to slaughter the Canaanites just because they were worshipping other gods)

    Your belief alone doesn’t offend me, but what you are willing to do in the name of it worries me a lot. I wouldn’t like to see you stoning your kids because they were being “rebellious” according to your outdated bible.

    PS: there were some deleted comments due the typos I wrote.

    ReplyDelete
  73. D.A.N. said...

    So Reynold et al,

    >>Your habit of lying is catching up to you, again.


    Its not personally offensive to me, its just offensive by definition.
    How? Explain please. "by definition". Explain how anyone other than a fundy bot would find that offensive. If something is offensive "by definition" that pretty much implies that pretty much anyone should find it offensive.

    I asked you once before: How could that slogan ("There is probably no god") be LESS offensive? I asked you once to give an example of an atheist message that you people would NOT find offensive.

    Nothing.

    So this is why it's useless to be nice to you people. Even when atheists try to be a kind as much as possible, you assholes STILL attack us.

    It isn't about "offensiveness"...you people just don't want atheists to practice the freedom of speech that everyone else has.

    So, fuck you. I don't even try to be nice anymore. It just doesn't work, and you people aren't worth it.

    To claim that I am lying is wrong.
    No Dan, it's accurate. You've been nailed several times on these last two posts of your alone, despite how you backpedal (see your lame-ass excuse above about "offensiveness").

    I have and do make mistakes. When called out, I correct said mistake (as I have in the past).
    Too bad you usually go right back to it later though. When you're caught lying though, you never admit it.

    I thought this was a discussion of personally offensive, or that is what you were driving at, but I forgot what I wrote. Thanks to Pvblivs I can restate my meanings. I have YET to see a lie in this conversation. That is not to say I DO NOT lie, because I certainly have. I am am a filthy, wretched, sinner after all.
    That last sentence of yours is the only accurate one in your entire reply.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Last warning Michelle,

    Stop retyping everything three times with three different accounts. Everything you're doing is triggering everything into Spam. Pretty please, stop mucking up my blog.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Reynold,

    >>It just doesn't work, and you people aren't worth it.

    Would you like me to write the definition of "bigot" for you now?

    ReplyDelete
  76. D.A.N;

    First, I only have two accounts: one for personal emails and the other one I did for creation of blogs only.

    Second, it's not my fault. I post the message for the first time and it goes automatically to spam and the message doesn't appear. Complain to Blogspot about it. I know I did and they didn't do anything about it, so... good luck with that. The reason why I deleted my old blog in Blogspot was exactly because that spam shit that kept happening!

    ReplyDelete
  77. Michelle,

    The thing is that I get EVERY email of EVERYTHING you say. So IF it goes to spam I just check it, almost daily, and select it as NOT spam. SO everything you say gets through eventually. No need to duplicate, as I have said in the past.

    ReplyDelete
  78. D.A.N

    Again, not my fault. Because everytime this happens I receive an email from Blogspot saying my comment wasn't posted. Then I have to post again. When I had a blog on here I got dozens of emails of people complaining about their comments not showing up and they received the same emails I get saying their comments weren't posted. As I told you before, complain to Blogspot about it (which probably is going to be a waste of your time) or change your blog to another adress. That's what I did. I deleted my blog here and I made a new one on a different adress.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Dan, now apparently suffering from hurt feelings, quoting me:

    It just doesn't work, and you people aren't worth it.


    Would you like me to write the definition of "bigot" for you now?
    If people like you ever actually admitted it when you were caught lying, if maybe you didn't get all offended over a completely inoffensive sign (ie. "There is probably no god"; I note that you STILL did not say just how the atheist message could be worded so that it wouldn't be "offensive by definition"!) then maybe it'd be worth trying to be nice. You bring this on yourself.

    Quit whining, and quit being hypocritical. You've said enough things about atheists in general on this blog that you really have no right to pretend that you yourself are not bigoted.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Reynold,

    I am a man enough to admit when I am wrong or made a mistake. I am even man enough to admit, although that I even lied. I have YET seen any evidence that I lied at all. Provide some and I will certainly admit that I was wrong to do so. Why, because in my worldview its an offense to God to do so. In your worldview, matter and motion, its acceptable. So, I am actually glad you are complaining that someone may be lying. Offenses to God do need to be pointed out.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Dan:

         From the look of things, when you are cornered in a blatently obvious lie, you will "admit to making a mistake. It's not like I dug up your quote from an old forgotten thread. In your opening post of this thread, you declared the signs to be offensive. Then, when someone called on you to explain why you thought they were so, you claimed that you never said that. It is reasonable to assume, even over your denial, that you remembered your previous claim -- though it's possible that you forgot where you made it. As it is quite reasonable for Michelle to believe you to have lied, her assertion that you did so was not a lie. Indeed, it looks rather hard to take the position that your claim that she "knew" you weren't lying as a mere mistake rather than a lie itself. The fact is that the evidence you have seen is evidence that you have lied. If you were being honest, you would at least concede that you could see where people would think that you had done so.
         This may come as a surprise to you, but lying is considered generally bad by human standards. As conscious entities, we are capable of making moral judgements. This has been explained to you multiple times, yet you keep trotting out the "according to your worldview, lying is acceptable" lie. Why do you do that? Is it because, according to your worldview it is acceptable to treat outsiders unethically (e.g. lying to them, stealing from them, murdering them) and calling it the will of your god?

    ReplyDelete
  82. Dan
    I am a man enough to admit when I am wrong or made a mistake. I am even man enough to admit, although that I even lied. I have YET seen any evidence that I lied at all. Provide some and I will certainly admit that I was wrong to do so.
    I've done so every time I've accused you of it. Remember when you accused me of hating Veterans, asshole? I I had to point out your bullshit. As did MaxFF right after me.

    Your later dodge when I pointed out that you had said that I valued the rapist over the child he raped was just fucking stupid. You dodge by saying that it was just a question! A question isn't the same as an accusation, is it? I then asked you a question. ("Did you stop assaulting your kids yet"?)


    Why, because in my worldview its an offense to God to do so.
    So what? WHY is it an offense to your god? Remember those verses I've posted before where it has your own god lying and abetting liars??

    In your worldview, matter and motion, its acceptable.
    Oh? What makes you say that? Other than your bigotry against atheists, that is?

    So, I am actually glad you are complaining that someone may be lying. Offenses to God do need to be pointed out.
    For all the good it does...


    Good grief...When Dan defends his opinion of how those signs are "offensive" he quotes the dictionary:
    Adjective-
    3. Actively aggressive; attacking
    4. (of a weapon) Meant for use in attack

    How the hell is that statement ("there probably is no god") an attack??

    I'll ask again...what can an atheist sign possibly say that people like you, Dan, or that Setterfield bitch would NOT find offensive??

    ReplyDelete
  83. There's nothing offensive in that billboard. It's just atheists showing themselves in order to encourage social acceptance.

    The reason why some christians think is offensive is because it opposites what they believe and they think we have no right/freedom to put those ads. For them, freedom of speech is only valid when it agrees with their faith/religion. Every ad which shows different opinions from them should be put down and everybody else who thinks different from them should be silenced; they even hide behind their nonsense belief that those ads are "condemning people to hell" to justify their bigotry.

    There's a video about a similar campaign that was made on USA (I'm an American Atheist) which a Brazilian Youtube user decided to do here as well. In this video appears some people (me included) saying "I'm a Brazilian Atheist" or "We are Brazilian Atheists". We did this in order to encourage social acceptance as well, so religious people see - set aside our ideologies - we are no different from them. How that can be offensive? We are not name calling the christians and religious people in general. We are just creating awareness towards atheism.

    The good thing is most people liked the initiative and the video and the only christian so far who commented there kept saying things about "the lake of fire in the center of the earth and "chip 666" (which is nonsense bullshit, but it's far from being offensive, lol)

    ReplyDelete
  84. Reynold,

    >>Remember when you accused me of hating Veterans, asshole?

    Yea, but I do not see that as as lie. I said "Wow, you hate Veterans?..." I was comparing and giving examples to show my point. The point that Atheists kill the enemy. Just because PZ Myers wouldn't, does NOT mean all Atheists would not. IT was fallacious from the very start. That was my point. I went to an extreme end to point that out. (You admitting there were no Atheist in Fox holes) ...still not a lie by any stretch.

    >>A question isn't the same as an accusation, is it?

    It can be. There are accusational questions. I was just pointing out your absurdities.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Pvb,

    >>Then, when someone called on you to explain why you thought they were so, you claimed that you never said that.

    Yes, that was a mistake, not a lie.

    >>It is reasonable to assume, even over your denial, that you remembered your previous claim -- though it's possible that you forgot where you made it.

    No less reasonable that I purposefully omitted comments into spam. Does not mean I did either.

    >>As it is quite reasonable for Michelle to believe you to have lied, her assertion that you did so was not a lie.

    I accept that. She believes that I lied, but that does NOT mean that I did, no matter how much they scream that I did.

    >>Indeed, it looks rather hard to take the position that your claim that she "knew" you weren't lying as a mere mistake rather than a lie itself.

    She knew I didn't lie because I told her I didn't. Now she can either believe that or not. Truth is truth though. If she believed that I lie willy nilly then she would not hold ANYTHING I say as fact. Speaking of dichotomy, this entire blog is that God exists. So right from the start, she or Reynold, believes me as a lair. Its par for the course and just an occupational hazard.

    >>The fact is that the evidence you have seen is evidence that you have lied.

    I completely disagree. You still believe that I purposely deleted your posts to spam? No? What changed your mind? Was it my word? Nope. It was an Atheist telling you the same thing that did it. You apologized but you still do not believe that I am not a truthful person. Its not like you believe my word is now bond because of this new information. You apologized but remain skeptical to what I say.

    >>If you were being honest, you would at least concede that you could see where people would think that you had done so.

    Sure I can see that but that does NOT mean that I did. By saying that I lied would be a lie in itself, so the wheels spin. We both keep digging our heals in but it gets nowhere. Even if you find that God does indeed exist I doubt that would repair the skepticism towards me.

    >>As conscious entities, we are capable of making moral judgements.

    Who determines what is or what is not moral?

    ReplyDelete
  86. Reynold wrote:
    "And something to cheer Dan up: an "offensive" billboard taken down."


    Gasp! Reynold! Such filth! I don't know how I'll recover from the mental scarring merely looking at that billboard has induced!

    ... Hi everyone!

    Dan wrote:
    "Christians certainly have to ride the buses with those offensive signs plastered all over that say "There's probably no God". I do not see the Atheists complaining that our rights are violated."


    They don't need to. A small percentage of extremely vocal Christians respond to the mere sight of those billboards by exploding into rage and sending nasty letters to everyone in their contact list, so people are already aware that a small percentage of christians think their rights are being violated by being told they might be wrong.

    Dan wrote:
    "Atheists have committed a crime against you by violating your rights. Atheists owe you for that. The Atheists took away your dignity for a time, your property, your feeling of safety in your own home, and they should suffer a just punishment for doing that, something that will deter them from doing it again."


    Okay Dan, I confess: this sort of militant rhetoric is disturbing to me. And I use "militant" in the most literal sense there. Not the pseudo-militant people brand likes of Dawkins as: Dawkins never wrote that Christians are taking away their dignity, property and safety. He never encouraged people to exact punishment from the christians.

    But what you're doing here? Telling people atheists are criminals, that we owe you? That we deserve to suffer for what we've done to you? It's laced with extremist rhetoric. I half-expect you to finish up by declaring jihad on the Encroaching Atheist Menace.

    I'm not telling you this to attack you or your beliefs. I'm telling you this because I think, at some level, even you have to acknowledge that this is pointless fearmongering. A product of an Us vs Them mentality that you've somehow been sucked into.

    We're people, Dan. I'd have thought, given how long you've been doing this blog, that you'd have noticed this by now. We're not some alien Other, we're not trying to steal your children and ban your religon, we're not the Nazi's Mk 2.0, no matter how much you'd like to think we are. We're not trying to take away your bibles. We don't want to tear down your statues of Jesus. We don't even want you to stop expressing your opinions, no matter how nutty we think they are, so long as we're just as free to disagree.

    All we want is for you to STOP. LEGISLATING. YOUR. RELIGON. And if you could find it in your heart to stop blaming us of stealing your dignity, property and feelings of safety while you're at it, we'd appreciate it. And who knows, maybe if you stopped blaming us, you'd be able to track down where and when you did actually lose those things, and you could get them back?

    Hates the A game. Would prefer to play the P game. You know the one.
    Qu

    ReplyDelete
  87. D.A.N,

    >> She knew I didn't lie because I told her I didn't. Now she can either believe that or not. Truth is truth though.

    I knew you lied; I quoted many of your comments where clearly showed where you lied and what you said. But instead of addressing the issue, you dodged by saying the same old arguments “how lying is wrong in my worldview?” bullshit.


    >> If she believed that I lie willy nilly then she would not hold ANYTHING I say as fact.

    I already don’t hold anything you say as a fact. Why? First because your belief is not based on verifiable and tangible evidence. Second: because you are dishonest and you lied. You’re just too damn stubborn and proud to admit it.

    >> Speaking of dichotomy, this entire blog is that God exists. So right from the start, she or Reynold, believes me as a lair. Its par for the course and just an occupational hazard.

    Your belief in god has nothing to do with this particular subject D.A.N. You believing blindly in some superior mythological divine entity and considers him to be righteous even when he does a lot of bad things just means you are a very gullible person.

    Now, the fact you see what you want to see it (as you said yourself in one of your posts that I quoted word by word); that you interpret what we say here the way you want and put in our mouths words we never said makes you a dishonest, lying person. It doesn’t need to be a god believer and to use both god/bible as a guide for moral conduct to know what a lie is and to know when someone is lying.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Dan:

         "Yes, that was a mistake, not a lie."
         Well, I think there was a mistake in there. You mistakenly thought that no one would catch you.
         "I accept that. She believes that I lied, but that does NOT mean that I did, no matter how much they scream that I did."
         However, it does mean that your claim that she lied when she accused you was false.
         "She knew I didn't lie because I told her I didn't."
         Right, because no one who gets caught in a lie denies having lied. Sarcasm aside, she does not know that you didn't lie. She knows that you claimed not to have lied. But the facts make it look like you lied. In order to believe that you didn't lie right there, I would have to assume that your memory is so bad that you are incapable of holding a coherent discussion. If you are going to deny making a claim when someone responds directly to it, you are being incoherent.
         "By saying that I lied would be a lie in itself,..."
         No, Dan, it wouldn't. But let me point out what you are doing here. You are saying that any incorrect claim is a lie (rather than a mistake.) If we apply your own standard to your previous statement (which was certainly materially incorrect) the conclusion is, again, that you lied. Otherwise, if you can accept that she believes you to have lied, then it is not a lie (though it could, in principle, be a mistake) for her to say you did.
         "You apologized but remain skeptical to what I say."
         This may come as a surprise to you. But I don't trust anyone completely. And, based on my belief that you are lying, you motive to lie is rather plain to see. Assuming that you are telling the truth leads to problems with your ability to hold a conversation.
         "Who determines what is or what is not moral?"
         We do, as conscious entities. We determine what is moral in much the same way as we determine what is red. We cannot will something to be moral. I have seen your tendencies. I know exactly where you want to go with that.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Quasar,

    >>All we want is for you to STOP. LEGISLATING. YOUR. RELIGON.

    Said the person who enjoys the spoils of secular schools, secular Universities, secular government, and secular science, and the abilities to freely murder babies. You seek to remove our FREE expression of God in public places. That is your, the Atheist, goal. You want me to reduce my expressions. That is why I said, the Atheist "have committed a crime against you by violating your rights." That is the truth.

    Let's go back to one of my first posts that speak of the court case, Murray v. Curlett. You're not fooling any of us by your cry of innocence.

    >>And who knows, maybe if you stopped blaming us, you'd be able to track down where and when you did actually lose those things, and you could get them back?

    Do you own a mirror?

    ReplyDelete
  90. Michelle,

    >>I already don’t hold anything you say as a fact. Why? First because your belief is not based on verifiable and tangible evidence. Second: because you are dishonest and you lied. You’re just too damn stubborn and proud to admit it.

    And that is where our conversation ends. Let the record show that you are here now merely to antagonize and disturb things, or to silence opposing opinions by your acknowledged verboseness. Thanks for that. I can treat you as a hostile contributor now with a clear consciousness. You certainly are not here at my blog for conversations with what you feel as a mere liar.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Pvb,

    "Who determines what is or what is not moral?"

    >>We do, as conscious entities.

    O'rly? how many are there of 'you'? Is everyone in agreement? Is that your claim?

    >> We determine what is moral in much the same way as we determine what is red.

    O'rly? Is it moral for God to end people's lives, save 8, in Noah's days? I say yes = red.

    >>I know exactly where you want to go with that.

    All together now...how do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

    ReplyDelete
  92. "Said the person who enjoys the spoils of secular schools, secular Universities, secular government, and secular science, and the abilities to freely murder babies."

    You do know the meaning of "secular" right? It is independant of religon. It neither proclaims nor denies religon. It has no position on and no relevance to religon. It ensures no religon gets any more breaks than any other religon, and I'm including "atheism" in that particular definition of "religon". If secular == atheistic, as you seem to be implying, then where are the Dawkins quotes taking pride of place in public courtrooms?

    Or would you prefer to enjoy the spoils of islamic schools, hindu universities, buddhist government and cthulhu-worshipping science? Because I'm up for campaining for that if you are. Sectarianism for everyone!

    "You seek to remove our FREE expression of God in public places."

    Not at all. You, and any other christian or muslim or buddhist or hindu or jew or, indeed, atheist, are allowed to pray and proclaim and express ourselves however we wish. And I'll fight for us all to have that right. But here's the catch: it needs to be you doing the proclaiming. Not the government, not you using government money. That's the government being preferential to you.

    Here's a good tactic for working out if you're being hypocritical: replace your position with the position of one of your opponents. Imagine the government putting up public monuments to Allah and claiming, when the tax-payers objected, "You seek to remove our FREE expression of Allah in public places." If you can stomach that idea without objection, than I'll accept your argument and stop opposing public monuments to the ten commandments. And then I'll start campaining for a quote from the Necrocomnicon to be inscribed on all public buildings. Afterall, the Old Ones are coming back to torture and enslave us all. People have to be warned!

    "That is why I said, the Atheist "have committed a crime against you by violating your rights." That is the truth."

    So, do I have this right? It's your "right" to use the tax-money provided by taoists and atheists and scientologists to pay for a purely christian monument? And it's a violation of your "rights", a "crime", to stop you from getting the government to use the taxes me and mine paid to erect something that does not, and likely never will, represent us?

    Do you really think that?

    The Old Ones are coming!
    Qu.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Follow up:

    Let's go back to one of my first posts that speak of the court case, Murray v. Curlett. You're not fooling any of us by your cry of innocence.

    Ooooh-kay? So a bunch of unconnected slander of a murdered woman I've never heard of proves... that I'm trying to stop you from using government power to push your religon? Well, that's already been said. By me. That I'm trying to force you to stop proseletising entirely? Nah, it doesn't prove that. At all. Perhaps that I'm a hedonistic baby-eater? Probably not it either... That I'm actually a superpowered demon embroiled in a plot to help the antichrist prevent the apocalypse and save the earth from Gods wrath? No, that's not me, that's Finsternis. (I'll get this eventually)

    ...

    "Do you own a mirror?"

    Yes. I do. It's quite large. It routinely tells me I'm the fairest of them all, but I think it's just lying to get in my pants. Why?

    ReplyDelete
  94. Dan:

         Despite the fact that you mouth the words that it is okay to end people's lives, I don't think you actually believe it. And, if you do, I want you locked up for the safety of the general public. Your judgement on whether an action is okay must be independent of who does that action. No special pleading for your supposed god.

    ReplyDelete
  95. D.A.N,

    >> You got all butthurt because I don’t anything you say as a fact? Poor baby…
    I’ve already asked you many times, if you have any evidence that proves your belief system to be fact, show it to me…you didn’t…all you brought to the table was your personal revelations, your personal experiences and your bible. Those things are far from being verifiable and tangible evidence that proves your god’s existence and his punishment against non - believers to be real.

    I’m here - as so others - to show the other side of the debate; I don’t have to agree with your ideas just because you’re a christian. I’m not here in an attempt to silence you and your opinions (see how dishonest you are by claiming “silence opposing opinions” is my goal?). I don’t agree with the shit you say but I never kept you - in any moment – from saying the things you say and I never will. But I have the right to disagree with your ideas and show my disagreement.

    The reason why you get so angry is because we dare to criticize your religion; to show how your religion is immoral and intolerant; to show how the god you believe in is a petty, violent, sadistic psychopath and the bible you follow is not exactly a moral, righteous book as you think/claim to be. But if you chose to be a gullible sheep, that’s your problem…not ours and you can be certain of that: we are not keeping you from being a gullible sheep; you chose to live like this, you feel fine that way and we won’t take that away from you.
    But you can be certain of one thing: if atheist billboards offend you that much, your faith is as firm and steady as a house of straw built over quicksand.

    If you can’t take the heat of people who opposes your ideas showing up here, so do the same thing ShockofGod does on his Youtube channel: filter every single comment of everyone who doesn’t agree with you and only let the opinions of people who agree with you and with your worldview to be posted.

    As I said before: for you freedom of expression is only valid for those who think alike you; those who oppose your opinions, ideas and belief should just shut up and take it quietly all the “offenses” some christians throw at us. And – as I said before – you and your religion are not immune to criticism; so stop acting like it is.

    Am I the one “silencing opposing opinions”? I’m not the one putting atheist billboards down and vandalizing them just because “I feel offended” and using the lamest excuses ever (“those signs are leading people to hell”/ “those signs are offensive to god”) to justify my bigotry. The christian community is.

    You say I’m silencing opposing opinions. I never – in my life - put down a religious billboard or vandalized it just because I don’t agree with the message. I just ignore the message and move on with my life. I have better things to do than start acting like a 5 year old brat and start bitching about a religious billboard. You religious people can spread your religion until you get blue in the face, I don’t care. I’m an atheist; yes…but I do respect the freedom people have to believe in whatever they want and to exercise their religion. You – on the other hand – don’t think that way.

    We say we are oppressing you, your religion and your god by simply existing and putting our faces out there. We are not oppressing you. We are not keeping you from going to your church, to read your bible and worshiping you god. You can get down on your knees and pray to Jesus until your knees start to bleed for all I care.

    (continues)

    ReplyDelete
  96. (cont)

    >> Said the person who enjoys the spoils of secular schools, secular Universities, secular government, and secular science, and the abilities to freely murder babies. You seek to remove our FREE expression of God in public places. That is your, the Atheist, goal. You want me to reduce my expressions. That is why I said, the Atheist "have committed a crime against you by violating your rights." That is the truth.

    It’s thanks to the fact USA is a secular country you have the freedom to be a christian without being oppressed. You are against secularism because you are the one who likes to oppress and silence those who are not christians and those who don’t believe in your god and secularism doesn’t allow you to do that without being penalized for it.

    Now…about religions symbols in government and public buildings: ok, you can put your cross in there, but since in a secular country no religion can’t have preference over the other; let’s put the Star of David for the jews; the symbol of Islam for the muslins; the pentagram for the wiccans; the images of the thousands of hindu gods; the image of Buddha; the inverted pentagram for Satanists; the images of the afro-brazilian supernatural entities to represent the practitioners of Candomble and Umbanda; etc.

    In the National Day of Prayer let’s receive people from different religions to pray and worship their respective gods and supernatural entities: hindus, muslins, jews, Buddhists; let the wiccans and Satanists perform their magical rituals; let the practitioners of Voodoo, Umbanda and Candomble to perform their rituals; after all…freedom of religion in a secular country works for everyone, not only for christians. What do you think about that idea, D.A.N?

    If you are very against it and claim non christians don’t have the right to pray and worship their gods, then you prove my point you are the one trying to oppress and shut up those who don’t share the same belief/ideology/worldview as you. ; )

    PS: try to live in a muslin theocracy where you will be the religious minority and tell me what’s like to be oppressed (if you manage to get out of there alive)

    ReplyDelete
  97. D.A.N. said...

    Remember when you accused me of hating Veterans, asshole?


    Yea, but I do not see that as as lie.
    Then fucking QUOTE me then, saying or even implying that I hate veterans, please. Because I NEVER DID!

    I said "Wow, you hate Veterans?..." I was comparing and giving examples to show my point. The point that Atheists kill the enemy.
    "The enemy", yes. But, how many times is the order given to make sure to kill the women and children too? That was my point.

    Just because PZ Myers wouldn't, does NOT mean all Atheists would not.
    I daresay MOST fucking wouldn't! Otherwise, why would we put people into War Crimes Trials when they do shit like that? No matter WHAT their religion is? Here's the point: People in general DO NOT regard the kiliing of babies and women in wartime to be a good act.

    That's in contrast to those of your own religious faith where it's the apologists on your side (ex. William Lane Craig) who have no problem with killing babies if your biblegod orders it.

    And you claim that WE get our morality from YOUR worldivew??

    IT was fallacious from the very start.
    A lot of the shit that you say is. ;)

    That was my point. I went to an extreme end to point that out.
    I, on the other hand, don't have to "go to an extreme". All I had to do was quote (in context) one of your own apologetic heroes defending baby-killing. And he's not the only one, not by a long shot.

    (You admitting there were no Atheist in Fox holes) ...still not a lie by any stretch.
    The fuck it isn't...I NEVER said that there were no atheists in foxholes! That is a strawman position that you made up. I was criticizing the fact that religous people have no problem with killing women and babies if biblegod commanded it.


    By the way, if you still want to keep spreading the religious canard of "no atheists in foxholes", check out the Military Atheists and Freethinkers group.

    A question isn't the same as an accusation, is it?
    It can be. There are accusational questions. I was just pointing out your absurdities.
    No, you were lying about my positions; distorting what I was saying by asking accusatory and misleading questions.

    ReplyDelete
  98. While we're at it; here's something else that Dan will find "offensive".


    By the way Dan...Freedom OF religion, NOT freedom FROM religion. DOES mean "freedom FROM religion". How? By being free to choose one religion, you are protected from being forced to choose any other religion. It means that no one can force any religion on anyone.

    If one wants to choose NO religion at all, it also means that no religion can be forced on that person.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Pvb,

    >>And, if you do, I want you locked up for the safety of the general public.

    How about corporal punishment? Should people be locked up for advocating corporal punishment? If Casey Anthony is convicted would it be wrong for the jury to recommend death penalty? If not, why? My point is evil deserves punishment. To me, that type of response is not a matter that is worthy of being locked up. Coddling evil behavior certainly is. Standing idly by and allowing abuse, neglect, or evil are still evil in itself.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Reynold,

    >>People in general DO NOT regard the kiliing of babies and women in wartime to be a good act.

    People?! Now you are saying people in general. Or JUST Atheists? Before it was just the latter.

    >>That's in contrast to those of your own religious faith where it's the apologists on your side (ex. William Lane Craig) who have no problem with killing babies if your biblegod orders it.

    I would have a huge problem if God ordered me personally to do such an act. If placed in an Abraham moment I would question it and battle Him long before accepting it. Its different times now though. We do not have God, or angels, in front of us as they did. I accept the story of the past UNTIL I can find out more though. I trust Him.

    >>And you claim that WE get our morality from YOUR worldivew??

    Yes, its borrowed, otherwise its not objective.

    >>A lot of the shit that you say is. ;)

    Now who is lying? :7p

    >>All I had to do was quote (in context) one of your own apologetic heroes defending baby-killing.

    Yes, you have that advantage. Its good truth was told for you to be able to reference such history. Thank God for that, right?

    >>The fuck it isn't...I NEVER said that there were no atheists in foxholes! That is a strawman position that you made up.

    You said, or eluded, that an Atheists would never kill in a war situation if ordered. That was your point right? That an Atheist is way too moral to go and kill in that type of situation. In other words, no Atheists in fox holes.

    I know for a fact that atheists kill, or act evil, and are in the military. I should know, I served with many, including myself, back in the 80's. I remember some non believers/ anti-God people got a kick out of throwing coins in the river of raw sewage in the Philippines to watch the poor kids dive in after them, instead of just giving the coins to the kids directly. Its what made me realize conscientiously that I had hatred for evil, and that I was "different" from all of those guys laughing. It was horrifying to me.

    >>I was criticizing the fact that religous people have no problem with killing women and babies if biblegod commanded it.

    Well then you are sadly mistaken, and/or a bigot.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Reynold,

    >>By being free to choose one religion, you are protected from being forced to choose any other religion.

    Yes, I agree with that. Even the religion of Atheism.

    >>It means that no one can force any religion on anyone.

    Yes, but my money is being taken to fund your religion. That I have a real problem with. Its great that I have the right to remove my kids from Atheistic religious public schools, but I refuse to fund those schools while my kids are out. Vouchers are more Constitutional that is for sure. Care to join me in that fight?

    >>If one wants to choose NO religion at all, it also means that no religion can be forced on that person.

    "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." ~Getty lee

    A position of no religion, is a religious position in itself. You're not fooling anyone here.

    ReplyDelete
  102. D.A.N. said...

    Reynold,

    >>People in general DO NOT regard the kiliing of babies and women in wartime to be a good act.

    People?! Now you are saying people in general. Or JUST Atheists? Before it was just the latter.
    People in general includes atheists. I'm trying to point out that it's pretty much just you fundies who have no problem killing kids when your god tells you to.

    You said, or eluded, that an Atheists would never kill in a war situation if ordered. That was your point right?
    WRONG! They wouldn't go and kill babies as was done by those following your god. THAT was my point, thus nullifying this shit you say next--> That an Atheist is way too moral to go and kill in that type of situation. In other words, no Atheists in fox holes.
    Unwarranted conclusion from a false premise.

    It means that no one can force any religion on anyone.
    Yes, but my money is being taken to fund your religion. That I have a real problem with. Its great that I have the right to remove my kids from Atheistic religious public schools, but I refuse to fund those schools while my kids are out. Vouchers are more Constitutional that is for sure. Care to join me in that fight?
    Dan, you're ignorant as hell, as usual. Atheism is NOT TAUGHT IN ANY PUBLIC SCHOOL IN AMERICA! If it ever was, the ACLU would shut that down, just as they do when teachers try to force your religion on people. What is being taught is actual science in schools. Tough shit if it goes against the bible. No teacher is supposed to take any side for or against any religion.

    If schools WERE "atheistic" as you claim, you should have no problem coming up with instance after instance where teacher after teacher goes and says that no gods exist. I suspect you won't be able to. They are to remain neutral.

    Look up the meaning of the word "secular" please.

    "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." ~Getty lee

    A position of no religion, is a religious position in itself. You're not fooling anyone here.

    No it isn't. It's just a choice to not accept ANY religion. A religious position is not the same as an actual religious belief.

    All we've chosen is not to accept any relgion. How does Getty's quote help you?

    ReplyDelete
  103. Dan
    I know for a fact that atheists kill, or act evil, and are in the military. I should know, I served with many, including myself, back in the 80's. I remember some non believers/ anti-God people got a kick out of throwing coins in the river of raw sewage in the Philippines to watch the poor kids dive in after them, instead of just giving the coins to the kids directly. Its what made me realize conscientiously that I had hatred for evil, and that I was "different" from all of those guys laughing. It was horrifying to me.
    Yet you somehow have NO trouble defending the killing of babies as "captital punishment"??

    Sure, what those guys did was wrong and sick and they should have been disciplined...but you, and Craig, and other apologists are defending something that's far worse.

    I was criticizing the fact that religous people have no problem with killing women and babies if biblegod commanded it.
    Well then you are sadly mistaken, and/or a bigot.
    How can I be mistaken Dan? You've dedicated a whole blog post DEFENDING that! You admitted that my quote of xian apologist William Craig was in context when HE defended that.

    See here:
    All I had to do was quote (in context) one of your own apologetic heroes defending baby-killing.
    Yes, you have that advantage. Its good truth was told for you to be able to reference such history. Thank God for that, right?
    For what? Evidence that you people are not near as "pro-life" as you pretend to be?

    Besides, do you even know what you just admitted here? You admitted that I have the advantage in that you people outright defend babykilling, while you have to resort to strawman and distortions of our position to attack us.

    ReplyDelete
  104. "I remember some non believers/ anti-God people got a kick out of throwing coins in the river of raw sewage in the Philippines to watch the poor kids dive in after them, instead of just giving the coins to the kids directly."

    Oh wow. "They did horrible things ergo they were atheists." Here's the thing, Dan: that horrifies me too, and I don't need God to be so horrified. Basic compassion gives me that. I don't need god to be horrified by evil actions. I also don't believe you knew they were non-believers: given your sad record of painting anyone who does anything horrible as a part of the Imaginary Atheist Menace, connecting the one to the other with no supporting evidence seems par for the course.

    "Yes, but my money is being taken to fund your religion. That I have a real problem with."

    Really? Why haven't I heard about this? Where can I get my skeptic-institution tax exemptions and how do I get a publically funded statue to PZ Myers installed in the courtroom?

    Oh wait... it's just another of the differences between this world and the parallel one you live in, isn't it?

    I'm going to assume you're talking about evolution again and wanting to take it out of schools. So if we're making that concession for you and yours, throwing science out the window in favor of religon, we should also point out that scientologists don't believe in psychology. So, should we defund all psychiatric courses, take psychiatry off the curriculum too? Oh hang on, some fundies don't believe in modern medicine either. Well that's out too! No more doctors for you America! Lesse, what else... oh, astronomy! Can't be teaching the poor kiddies about all those stars billions of light-years away, can we?

    Freedom OF religon, you believe in that, right Dan? You believe in your constitution, right? So you've got to give any special concessions you give one religon to all the others, right?

    ReplyDelete
  105. Michelle,

    >>I don’t agree with the shit you say but I never kept you - in any moment – from saying the things you say and I never will.

    Unless I lived in Brazil, then you would sue me.

    >>The reason why you get so angry is because we dare to criticize your religion

    That does not anger me at all, duh I have an open forum blog, what might is that you claim that, over and over, the whole time I am telling you that it doesn't. You deny my own reasoning. That is annoying more then anything.

    >>if atheist billboards offend you that much, your faith is as firm and steady as a house of straw built over quicksand.

    See?! Who is lying now!? Show that I said that it offended me. Otherwise retract that lie. If you say that I am doing that exact thing, then by doing it yourself is double hypocritical based on your beliefs.

    >>If you can’t take the heat of people who opposes your ideas showing up here, so do the same thing ShockofGod does on his Youtube channel: filter every single comment of everyone who doesn’t agree with you and only let the opinions of people who agree with you and with your worldview to be posted.

    I will think about it, and consider it, especially with you. I can only take so much hypocrisy in a day, after all. :7)

    >>And – as I said before – you and your religion are not immune to criticism; so stop acting like it is.

    And another lie.

    >>I have better things to do than start acting like a 5 year old brat and start bitching about a religious billboard.

    ...like other Atheists. Got it. Thanks for admitting that.

    >>You – on the other hand – don’t think that way.

    Wow, another lie. You see, according to you these are lies that you are spouting. Is that wrong?

    >>We say we are oppressing you, your religion and your god by simply existing and putting our faces out there.

    Even Satan needs a mascot?

    ReplyDelete
  106. Reynold,

    >>They are to remain neutral.

    No such a thing. Thy bias will lead thy way.

    >>Look up the meaning of the word "secular" please.

    Look up the meaning of "secular humanism" please.

    >>No it isn't. It's just a choice to not accept ANY religion. A religious position is not the same as an actual religious belief.

    Déjà vu

    >>All we've chosen is not to accept any relgion.

    That is not your own. Which is self, or secular humanism, or Atheism (.org), or freedom from religion foundation, or whatever your calling it these days. Again, you're not fooling anyone here.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Reynold,

    >>Yet you somehow have NO trouble defending the killing of babies as "captital punishment"??

    Are you trying to lie now? Where did I EVER say that? If you are speaking of God, then you're taking things out of context and not even in the same realm or plane. Try honesty next time.

    >>Sure, what those guys did was wrong and sick and they should have been disciplined...but you, and Craig, and other apologists are defending something that's far worse.

    Look, I have issues with things I do not completely understand. The difference is that I TRUST God's choices and look forward to His reasoning behind it. Not that its owed to me or anything. Trust is not blind. Trust is EARNED.

    All I had to do was quote (in context) one of your own apologetic heroes defending baby-killing.

    Yes, you have that advantage. Its good truth was told for you to be able to reference such history. Thank God for that, right?

    >>For what? Evidence that you people are not near as "pro-life" as you pretend to be?

    Ops I misunderstand that point. I was thinking of the history written in the Bible for you to reference to. Never mind. I get it now, you meant Craig. Which makes your last point null and void.

    >>You admitted that I have the advantage in that you people outright defend babykilling, while you have to resort to strawman and distortions of our position to attack us.

    Void. You do have the history written in the Bible to reference. We do not defend baby killings in your equivocation fallacy. We trust God. You INJECTED that we defend those positions as our own. I would not kill a baby. Atheistic belief structure that allows for pro murder, or choice of murder, certainly would.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Wow so much stupid--so much typical fundie nut.

    The only point the idiot fundie has is on top of his head.

    ReplyDelete
  109. D.A.N. said... (to Reynold)

    I would have a huge problem if God ordered me personally to do such an act. If placed in an Abraham moment I would question it and battle Him long before accepting it. Its different times now though. We do not have God, or angels, in front of us as they did. I accept the story of the past UNTIL I can find out more though. I trust Him.

    Your God given conscience would tell you that God's instruction was wrong? So you'd argue with God's commandment? Really? And yet you say you trust Him? I call bullshit, you couldn't really get any more contradictory Dan.

    >>And you claim that WE get our morality from YOUR worldivew??

    Yes, its borrowed, otherwise its not objective.

    Please account for objectivity from within your inherently subjective Christian worldview. I've asked you to do this on many occasions and you have yet to give an account. I think that it's because you can't. Instead we'll find that you've had to borrow objectivity from a worldview which isn't rooted in the primacy of conciousness i.e. a non-theistic one.

    ReplyDelete
  110. D.A.N,

    >> Unless I lived in Brazil, then you would sue me.

    No, I wouldn’t. Why would I? I don’t consider your religious messages to be offensive; they are non sense and stupid…yes…but that’s it. In Brazil we have the freedom of religion too guaranteed by our constitution. SO, if an atheist decided to have a tantrum over a religious billboard or a religious person decided to have a tantrum over an atheist ad and decided to take legal action against it, no lawyer would accept the case – because it’s unconstitutional - and the judge would probably tell them to grow a pair and fuck off.

    In the case ATEA took legal action against that TV news host is because he committed the felony of discrimination and slander.

    For example: someone has a huge prejudice against christians (before you go on imagining things, I don’t have any prejudice against christians, ok?). So this person claims – on TV or in some article – that all Christians are responsible for violent attacks against homosexuals. So – dozens of christian institutions decided to sue that person because of it. Are they wrong for suing this person? No. If that person said all christians are responsible for homophobic violent attacks; it’s better for this person to have really hard evidence that proves his/her claim to be true. If this person doesn’t have any evidence of that and that affirmation was something he/she took out of his/her ass based on personal prejudice against christians – it’s not only discrimination but also slander and deserves to be taken legal action against it. It was the same thing with this TV host. He claimed atheists are responsible for violent crimes; since he didn’t have any evidence to back his claim up and it was based solely in his prejudice against atheists, so it fits the crime of discrimination and slander. But ATEA took easy on him and the only thing will be done is a right to answer for ATEA and a fine of almost US$ 7.000,00 a day if the TV network doesn’t give the right to answer for ATEA in the day the judge decided.

    >> See?! Who is lying now!? Show that I said that it offended me. Otherwise retract that lie. If you say that I am doing that exact thing, then by doing it yourself is double hypocritical based on your beliefs.

    Here’s what you said on your post: “Christians certainly have to ride the buses with those offensive signs plastered all over that say "There's probably no God".

    Here’s what you said in one of your comments: “Pretty much all the cursing, and blasphemy, that you have done towards me and God. Cursing, blasphemy, and lying is an offense to God. You will have to deal with Him on that.”

    Am I still lying about you not getting offended? You said you don’t get offended and then you contradict yourself by saying those things I quoted…who is lying now?

    >> I will think about it, and consider it, especially with you. I can only take so much hypocrisy in a day, after all.
    Good; then you change the name of your blog and change the target group to christians only…problem solved.

    >> Me: And – as I said before – you and your religion are not immune to criticism; so stop acting like it is.

    D.AN.:And another lie.

    No, it isn’t. Every time we criticize your religion and your god, you go ballistic and have a tantrum over it. You dodge the questions we ask you; you have your own interpretation of everything we say here; you are against us showing our opinions and ideas; you are against creating awareness towards atheism so people can see we are just like them: normal people with normal jobs and normal lives. Not some baby eaters/baby rapists/baby killers/satanists like you think we are.
    (continues)

    ReplyDelete
  111. (cont)
    >> Me: We say we are oppressing you, your religion and your god by simply existing and putting our faces out there.

    D.A.N: Even Satan needs a mascot?

    Read my previous answer: “Not some baby eaters/baby rapists/baby killers/satanists like you think we are.”

    You proved my point by saying that. Thanks for doing so. : )

    As I pointed out before D.A.N: freedom of speech and expression is valid for everyone, not for christians only. You have all the right to disagree with our ideas and show your disagreement; you have all the right to criticize atheism; you have all the right to put religious ads and billboards in public places…damn, you even have the right to feel offended by them.

    But we have the same right to disagree with your ideas and show our disagreement; we have the right to criticize your religion and we have the right to put atheist ads and billboards in public places if we want to. Christians having a fit and start vandalizing atheist billboards and demanding them to be taken down is unconstitutional.

    Did you ever see an atheist organization vandalizing religious ads or making petitions – like you people do – demanding religious billboards to be taken down? No. We are atheists but we don’t agree with keeping people from exercising their beliefs and spreading their messages.

    If I ever see an atheist bitching about religious people should be censored by any means necessary, I would deal with that atheist myself by calling him out on his bullshit.

    Just because we don’t agree in most things and criticize your religion it doesn’t mean we want to oppress you and keep you from exercising your freedom to believe in whatever you want and to worship your god. You are the one acting like that is “atheists’ goal” when we pointed out many times to you it isn’t. All we want is to all religions (including christianity) and ideologies to be treated equally. Is it wrong to want that?

    In a nutshell: you are accusing atheists from oppressing christians when is just the opposite: christians oppressing atheists and all other people who don’t have the same belief system you do. Or do you agree with the freedom wiccans have to perform their rituals; muslins to pray for Allah; hindus to pray for their pantheon of gods; etc?

    Based on your opinions: freedom of religion and freedom of speech/expression is only valid for christians and the rest…shut up and fuck off!

    ReplyDelete
  112. D.A.N. said...

    Reynold,

    >>They are to remain neutral.

    No such a thing. Thy bias will lead thy way.
    Baloney. All they have to do is not say one way or another whether any god exists or not.

    Look up the meaning of the word "secular" please.
    Look up the meaning of "secular humanism" please.
    According to this, you must realize that "secular" and "secular humanism" are two different things, right? Keeping that in mind, name ONE SCHOOL that teaches "secular humanism", Dan. ONE! List the tenets of secular humanism that your example school teaches.

    Being secular means to be neutral about religion. Secular humanism is a philosophical position. The two are not the same thing, Dan. You lie by implying that they are.


    No it isn't. It's just a choice to not accept ANY religion. A religious position is not the same as an actual religious belief.
    Déjà vu

    And again you reject reality.

    All we've chosen is not to accept any relgion.
    That is not your own. Which is self, or secular humanism, or Atheism (.org), or freedom from religion foundation, or whatever your calling it these days. Again, you're not fooling anyone here.
    I'm not trying to fool anyone. You're just lying about atheism being a religion. AGAIN. It's like saying that a person has a hobby of not collecting stamps! Didn't we teach you the last time you tried this lie of yours?

    Judging from that idiotic Bahsnen quote, it seems not. Greg blindly assumes an orthodoxy to atheism that does not exist. Of course, that's not surprising since he's the guy who came up with the circular reasoning method of apologetics that you and Sye love so much.

    ReplyDelete
  113. D.A.N. said...

    Reynold,

    >>Yet you somehow have NO trouble defending the killing of babies as "captital punishment"??

    Are you trying to lie now? Where did I EVER say that?
    It was the TITLE OF ONE OF YOUR POSTS, ASSHOLE! Within that post and your comments after it, you made the case that it was "captial punishment". Including the children!


    At some point, some idiot named "toddes" called it a "mercy" to kill the children, and you thanked him for being a voice of reason!

    Whether "capital punishment" or "mercy", either way, you defended the killing of children.

    If you are speaking of God, then you're taking things out of context and not even in the same realm or plane. Try honesty next time.
    You agree with your god's actions. That makes it your problem, that makes it your view.

    Please show just how I'm taking things out of context, please.


    On some other points freddie's dead nails you.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Reynold,

    >>Being secular means to be neutral about religion. Secular humanism is a philosophical position. The two are not the same thing, Dan. You lie by implying that they are.

    Wrong! Humans are NOT robots. EVERYONE holds a philosophical position on every aspect of their lives. If there is a subject of God, everyone has a position. NO ONE is neutral. "You lie by implying that they are.

    >> Didn't we teach you the last time you tried this lie of yours?

    Didn't we teach you about your religion in the past?

    - Bald is a hair style
    - "off" is a "choice" of what type of television channel you want to watch. None.
    - "abstinence" is a "sex position"
    - Not to, is a choice to the hobby of collecting stamps.

    We all have made our choices. Freely given by our Creator I might add.

    >>It was the TITLE OF ONE OF YOUR POSTS, ASSHOLE!

    This is a equivocation fallacy again. Yes, it was the name of that post on that particular subject, but its not to take the position of its OK to kill babies, like you are insinuating. It was capitol punishment for the Canaanites. It would be murder if I did that to my kid. Unless I lived in Florida that is.

    >>Please show just how I'm taking things out of context, please.

    You are comparing an eternal realm with a temporal one and calling it the same. If you take out your kid, its murder. If God did it, its calling His own home to HIM. Two different things. You just are comparing them in the same plane/realm you are currently in. I am sure you will brush that aside, yet again, and claim that I love to kill babies all over again since your broken record cannot be repaired without God intervening.

    ReplyDelete
  115. D.A.N,

    I saw the definition of religion pointed out in one comment rebutting your claim that atheism is a religion and I will refresh your mind in case you forgot:

    The definition of religion:

    - service or cult to a god or to any divinity through rituals and prayers; a conscient feeling of dependency or submission that connects the human creature to the creator;
    - an external or internal cult rendered to a divinity;
    - belief or religious doctrine; a moral and dogmatic system;
    - worship of sacred things; practice of divine principles;
    - fear of god;
    - order of religious congregation;
    - a set of rituals and ceremonies ordained for the manifestation of divinity's cult;
    - acknowledgement of a dependence of god;
    - social institution with beliefs and rituals;
    - social institution created towards of an idea of one or several supernatural beings and their relationship with men.

    Borderline: religion is a belief system where everything revolves around the faith; loyalty; commitment; obedience; dependence and worship of supernatural/divine entities through ceremonies and rituals.

    So, atheism is not a religion. We have no dogmas, no religious ceremonies and rituals and we don't worship anything and anyone …including the “self” as you claimed we do.

    Of course I do believe in myself, but not in the religious meaning of the term. I don’t worship myself (if I did I would be a narcissist).

    Even – for argument’s sake – as you told in one of your comments on that post that we believe in a god and is called ”self" and – showing to you the definition of the word “self” which means: personality; I; the person itself; myself; by myself” still atheism is not a religion as you claim to be since we (in that case, self) are not considered to be a divine/supernatural entity by definition of these 2 words: divine and supernatural.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Michelle,

    Your preaching is obvious. You're not fooling anyone here.

    ReplyDelete
  117. - Bald is a hair style
    - "off" is a "choice" of what type of television channel you want to watch. None.
    - "abstinence" is a "sex position"
    - Not to, is a choice to the hobby of collecting stamps.


    So, by this logic, Dans a criminal.

    There's lots of crimes after all. The crime that Dan has chosen to commit is "not commiting a crime".

    Dan, I'm going to put this politely and tactfully despite wanting to scream it into your ear at the top of my lungs from 0.2 feet away:

    Stop making stuff up. Just. Stop it.

    Bald 'aint a hair style. "Hair style" implies hair.
    "Off" isn't a television channel.
    Unless someone's rewritten the Kama-Sutra recently, "abstinence" is not a sex position.
    And not collecting stamps will never be a hobby.

    The only thing these things are is a decision not to participate. End of story. A decision is not the same things as a hobby, television channel, crime or religon. And if they are to you, then you are rewriting the english language to suit your own purposes. And that's your problem, not atheists.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Quasar,

    >>"abstinence" is not a sex position.

    In sex, abstinence is certainly a position taken about it.

    >>The only thing these things are is a decision not to participate.

    Then compare apples to oranges. Atheists certainly are participating. They are not bowing out, they are taking up their version of the cross and running with it.

    ReplyDelete
  119. D.A.N,

    Me preaching? Just because I gave you the true definition of religion to show you atheism doesn't fit that definition anywhere except in your deluded mind?

    Funny, that's the only thing you said...I guess you don't have any arguments to prove me wrong...unless you come up with the same old arguments of "how something is valid in my worldview".

    Seriously D.A.N; as person who was an atheist for years (I think that really hard to believe based on your misinformation about atheism) you are completely clueless about what atheism means. You are also completely clueless as an extremely religious person about what defines religion; as a religious person, you should've know better and it's a shame - to yourself I might add - you don't.

    Let's face it, D.A.N: you ran out of arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  120. D.A.N,

    You are the one who's not fooling anyone here with your preaching, your dishonesty, your misinterpretation of facts, your "reasoning and logic", your moral relativism and your bogus religion/god.

    Everyone who comments on your posts are too smart and intelligent to fall for your crap and manipulations.

    ReplyDelete
  121. In sex, abstinence is certainly a position taken about it.
    "What is your religon?" is a question where the answer is an enumerable (ie. there are multiple, but finite and mutually incompatible, answers). I cannot think of any way to phrase a question about sex such that it is an enumerable question. Lets not "compare apples to oranges" here, okay?


    "Atheists certainly are participating. They are not bowing out, they are taking up their version of the cross and running with it."

    They're participating in various debates and arguments, sure, but you weren't claiming that atheism was a debate position or a side in an argument. It is, we already know that. But you said that athism was a religon, and the problem with that is that atheists are not participating in or practicing a religon. Look: no rituals, no belief in supernatural or devine entities (actually, no central belief at all beyond "there's probably no god"), no faith, no doctrine. Ergo, no religon.

    ReplyDelete
  122. By the way Dan, are you still arguing that you're commiting the crime of not commiting a crime? Because we may have to report you.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Dan the Debunked wrote: Michelle,

    Your preaching is obvious. You're not fooling anyone here.


    This is a lie, and lying is a sin. The ease with which you do it suggests unpleasant things about your character.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Well, Dan..it looks like the others here are busy shooting down your bullshit from your last reply to me, but since it was addressed to me I'll reply anyway.

    Being secular means to be neutral about religion. Secular humanism is a philosophical position. The two are not the same thing, Dan. You lie by implying that they are.
    Wrong! Humans are NOT robots. EVERYONE holds a philosophical position on every aspect of their lives.
    Evidence please? So if someone says that they don't care about any particular topic you'll accuse them of lying? Good luck.

    If there is a subject of God, everyone has a position. NO ONE is neutral. "You lie by implying that they are.
    Policies CAN BE neutral, even if people can't. Though I don't believe for an instant that you're right there. Just arrogant assumption on your part. You're letting some old book do your thinking for you again, I think.

    Didn't we teach you the last time you tried this lie of yours?
    Didn't we teach you about your religion in the past?
    And we bitch-slapped you in the comments to that post.

    Now, Dan you just get stupid (again). The others have dealt with this though:
    - Bald is a hair style
    - "off" is a "choice" of what type of television channel you want to watch. None.
    - "abstinence" is a "sex position"
    - Not to, is a choice to the hobby of collecting stamps.

    We all have made our choices. Freely given by our Creator I might add.

    Oh? Look at your bible sometime. Why don't you list all the "rights" the bible gives. You know, like "thou shalt have no other gods before me" kind of shit? Do you claim that "freedom of religion" is a "god-given" right, Dan?

    It was the TITLE OF ONE OF YOUR POSTS, ASSHOLE!
    This is a equivocation fallacy again. Yes, it was the name of that post on that particular subject, but its not to take the position of its OK to kill babies, like you are insinuating.
    You kept on defending the killing of those babies within your post, idiot! You called it "capital punishment" to kill ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE!

    It was capitol punishment for the Canaanites.
    Even for THEIR CHILDREN?? Remember, they were killed too.

    It would be murder if I did that to my kid. Unless I lived in Florida that is.
    Or unless you believe your god's voice telling you to do it, a la Susan Smith style.

    Please show just how I'm taking things out of context, please.
    You are comparing an eternal realm with a temporal one and calling it the same. If you take out your kid, its murder. If God did it, its calling His own home to HIM. Two different things.
    WRONG! It's still babies being killed by people. Only it's a double standard. It's no sin for god to do it, but it is for us to do it? What the fuck is the sin then? Either way, babies are being killed and (you assume with no evidence) going "home". Yeah. To the guy who had them killed.

    What about this "rapture" bullshit I hear you people talk about? Why not just "teleport" them painlessly away? No killing needed!

    You just are comparing them in the same plane/realm you are currently in.
    I'm using a consistent standard of morality. What you idiots pretend to have.

    I am sure you will brush that aside, yet again, and claim that I love to kill babies all over again since your broken record cannot be repaired without God intervening.
    You defended it, Dan. You can't get around that.

    ReplyDelete
  125. By the way...in the "eternal" sense, in your view babies supposedly go to heaven (biblical justification please) no matter how they die, or who kills them. So, what then, in your worldview, is wrong with abortion?

    I've given an atheist point of view a while back.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Your insults are saying very little about Atheists Reynold, and volumes about the kind of manipulation of truth required by your faith.

    ReplyDelete
  127. D.A.N,

    >> D.A.N: Your insults are saying very little about Atheists Reynold, and volumes about the kind of manipulation of truth required by your faith.

    Really D.A.N? You complaining about manipulation of the truth? If you don't remember you "forgot" to put in your newest post ”Independence Day Indeed” the true reason why some pilots refused to fly with atheist ads.

    One of them - even though being an atheist - didn't want to fly with an atheist ad in his airplane because he didn't want to be shot by religious extremists.

    The other one didn't want to fly with atheist ads because he feared hell.

    Basically, the main reason they didn't want to fly with atheist ads was FEAR, plain and simple. Not "...for having the courage to stand for what they believe in.” as you interpreted.

    That's being dishonest. Not too mention is very hypocritical of you complaining to Reynold about manipulation of the truth when you are the one manipulating the truth at your behalf by keeping information out and not telling the whole story.

    Besides, a faith that keeps their believers in a state of constant fear due the "threat of burning in hell forever if you doubt us or abandon us” is not strong and confident enough to keep and hold their followers by "its own merits".

    Christianity looks like a very insecure girlfriend doing everything in her power to keep her boyfriend near her all the time. She calls and text him 24x7; she has jealousy fits all the time; she uses emotional blackmail when it looks like he's about to end the relationship; she gets pregnant of him in order to keep him around, she threatens to commit suicide if he leaves her, etc, etc...

    ReplyDelete
  128. "manipulation of truth"? Did you not read the replies you got to your "Independence Day" blog post that showed how you are the one who got caught lying? Here's a tip: It's the FIRST FUCKING COMMENT!

    ReplyDelete
  129. Reynold,

    You obviously do not understand what a lie is. Please educate yourself more. It may get embarrassing for you.

    BTW, I did just address the first comment although fallacies do not require it. I did it for you. :7)

    ReplyDelete
  130. Dan:

         A lie is a willful misrepresentation. You took an article that showed that many pilots would not fly atheist banners either because they were afraid of hellfire or because they were afraid of being shot at and misrepresented it as the pilots taking a courageous stand for the christian faith. There is no evidence that even one pilot was taking a stand for the christian faith.
         By the way, Dan, you did not address that first comment and it was not a fallacy. But that's okay, it just means another lie coming from you.
         The addition of the words "under god" to the Pledge is a little like the way China calls itself the "People's Republic." Its mere presence tells you that it's false and that the people who put it there did not believe it.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Pvb,

    >>You took an article that showed that many pilots would not fly atheist banners either because they were afraid of hellfire or because they were afraid of being shot at and misrepresented it as the pilots taking a courageous stand for the christian faith.

    You're assuming a great deal in all of this. Anyway, go to that post to comment about all of this, like I did here and here.

    You have no base for your accusation that I lied AT ALL.

    >>There is no evidence that even one pilot was taking a stand for the christian faith.

    Wrong! Is there any evidence specific to the contrary? Certainly 'afraid of Hell' is a Christian thingy in my viewpoint. And that is no lie.

    Also, shame on you STILL accusing me of lying when you FULLY RETRACTED your accusations of my lying in that 'spam' fiasco. If "A lie is a willful misrepresentation" then you are certainly lying about me being a liar.

    ReplyDelete
  132. D.A.N,

    >> Wrong! Is there any evidence specific to the contrary?

    If there’s any evidence that shows those pilots were brave christians standing up for their beliefs, where are those evidences? Can you give us one? Or that affirmation was just something you took out of your ass? Unless you are all-knowing like the god you believe in, you can’t know for sure all those pilots who refused to fly with atheist banners are christians.

    >> Certainly 'afraid of Hell' is a Christian thingy in my viewpoint.

    Hell is not only a Christian thingy. There aref non christian religions who have the concept of hell: Islam, Buddhism, hinduism, etc.
    How do you know for sure that pilot who feared hell is a christian? He could be a muslin or a buddhist or a hindu, etc…

    ReplyDelete
  133. Michelle,

    >>If there’s any evidence that shows those pilots were brave christians standing up for their beliefs, where are those evidences?

    I feel caught. It was NEVER my original argument that I claimed this. It was yours from the beginning. YOU assumed it and argued against it. I failed to say STRAW MAN, but instead I said "Wrong!" I should of said the former. I retract the "Wrong!" and insert "Straw man" to tighten up the conversation.

    >>Hell is not only a Christian thingy.

    Its your injected straw man argument, not mine!

    >>There aref non christian religions who have the concept of hell: Islam, Buddhism, hinduism, etc.

    *sigh. I know this.

    >>How do you know for sure that pilot who feared hell is a christian?

    STRAW MAN! Read what I ACTUALLY SAID instead of what YOU BELIEVE I said, after the fact.

    "I applaud these pilots for knowing their rights and for having the courage to stand for what they believe in."

    Where did I ever state this was a Christian thing? Either show it, or better yet... Please take me up on my offer. Pretty please?

    ReplyDelete
  134. Dan:

         I posted here because your "you obviously do not understand what a lie is" comment is here. The people (possibly excluding yourself) do understand what a lie is. My reference to the other blog post was simply to give the required evidence that you tell lies.
         "Certainly 'afraid of Hell' is a Christian thingy in my viewpoint."
         It is indeed. However, it is not a courageous-stand thingy.
         "You have no [basis] for your accusation that I lied AT ALL."
         Of course I have. You said that you addressed the first comment on that thread (that would be the one made by Bathtub.) But, in reality, you have (so far) ignored that comment. There was the other thread where you called a message "offensive," someone asked you why you thought it was offensive and you claimed you never said it was. When you were called on that, you claimed it was a mere "mistake."
         Now, you are correct that I retracted a particular accusation of lying when evidence came that the particular claim of yours was, in fact, true. But the reason why I couldn't take you at your word was that you had already demonstrated a pattern of lying. Face it. You lie. Now, not everything you say is a lie. But you still have a habit of lying. You don't need to respond. I'm sure that people will understand that the reason you tried "shame on you" is because you agree and were trying to be pre-emptive.

    ReplyDelete
  135. D.A.N,

    >> Here’s what you said: Wrong! Is there any evidence specific to the contrary? Certainly 'afraid of Hell' is a Christian thingy in my viewpoint. And that is no lie.

    So you automatically assumed that pilot was a christian because – according to you – “afraid of hell is a christian thingy” when there’s no mentioning in the article what religion he follows.

    The thing is: you were caught lying again. You said the reason why those pilots didn’t want to fly with atheist banners was they were standing up for their beliefs when it wasn’t the case for most of the pilots.

    The only thing there that mentions religious beliefs being the reason why ONE pilot refused to fly with an atheist ad was because he feared hell. But we don’t know what his religion is. At least I didn’t make baseless assumptions of what is that pilot’s belief system. The CNN article I read was more complete and said some pilots didn’t want to fly with those atheist ads because they feared for their marriages. But all those reasons sums up to one word: FEAR. Even though is disappointing, the American Atheists respected them and didn’t force pilots to fly with atheist banners against their will.

    Besides the unjustifiable fear of hell, the other fears weren’t unjustifiable. Pilots fearing for their lives are a serious matter. People don’t wear bulletproof vest for the fun of it. They wear to protect themselves from being shot. And when some pilots say they won’t fly with atheist banners because they can’t wear a bulletproof vest it just means one thing: they fear for their lives thanks to the huge prejudice, bigotry and hate towards atheists in US, specially in the Bible Belt which the state of Texas is part of.

    Read the CNN article and take a look what Dave Silverman said: “This is a clear reminder of why we need to keep fighting because the bigotry against us is so thick that a lot of the pilots are afraid to fly our banners.”

    Face it: you misinterpreted the entire article and manipulated information at your behalf and to the behalf of your religious belief. And that shows how intolerant/bigot/manipulative/dishonest person you can be.

    So, you can scream "STRAW MAN" until you get blue in the face. I don't care. That doesn't change the fact you lied once again.

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>