The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot

Posted in the Atheism Forum

Comments (Page 141)

Showing posts 2,801 - 2,820 of5,550
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2878
Jan 23, 2013
 
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>There's nothing wrong with dreaming...
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
...in moderation.
I liked that.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2879
Jan 23, 2013
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
Libertarian votes siphon off republican votes. Hey I am good with that!
<quoted text>
I am fine with that as well. If it weren't for the Libertarian party I wouldn't vote, at all.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2880
Jan 23, 2013
 
Sounds reasonable to me. Rand Paul is said to be looking to run for president but as a republican and word has it he would do better than his old man.

If he ran as a republican would he get your support as well as other libertarians or not in your opinion.
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>I am fine with that as well. If it weren't for the Libertarian party I wouldn't vote, at all.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2881
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Givemeliberty wrote:
Sounds reasonable to me. Rand Paul is said to be looking to run for president but as a republican and word has it he would do better than his old man.
If he ran as a republican would he get your support as well as other libertarians or not in your opinion.
<quoted text>
All of that clan are misogynists to the core. As such, not suitable for dog catcher, let alone public office.

I read a quote the other day, that one of the clan advocated that people who felt they were being sexually harassed should simply get a different job... wait... what?

meh.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2882
Jan 23, 2013
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
Sounds reasonable to me. Rand Paul is said to be looking to run for president but as a republican and word has it he would do better than his old man.
If he ran as a republican would he get your support as well as other libertarians or not in your opinion.
<quoted text>
If Rand Paul were to run as a Republican.. nope wouldn't get my vote. Then again if Rand Paul were to run 3rd party I probably still would not vote for him. He is not his old man. I only vote in an attempt to bring in a third party to a two party system. I am sure that there are some, if not most Libertarians that would vote for him though.

“There are other issues.”

Since: May 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2884
Jan 23, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>Why do we have "in god we trust" on our money? Are you truly this ignorant of history?

It was to appease you brain-dead types, you silly!

You idiots who grovel after your god, are so easily placated.

But didn't you know? The US Supreme Court ruled that "in god we trust" has ZERO religious meaning, that it's just a motto!

Meaning? The word "god" in "in god we trust" is not about the god YOU worship at all!

Ain't that nice-- you've been worshiping a false god all this time...!

LOL!
Again that's so you guys won't cry about it since you cry for everything. Bwahaha! Did they rule that in our pledge too?

“There are other issues.”

Since: May 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2885
Jan 23, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>Why are most politicians religious?

Well... because of stupid people such as YOU, that's why.

Duuuh.

Stupid people like you, actually believe politicians when they get all religious and sh7t.

Seriously! You idiots actually believe the majority of politicians worship the same way YOU do!

And that is so very funny, it literally makes me laugh out loud.

You people are too easy to fool. It's that Fox News you keep watching-- it has been shown to literally damage your ability to see reason.

Sad.
Yet we are still the majority and you're not.

Since: Mar 11

Dowagiac, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2887
Jan 23, 2013
 
Sounds like the man the GOP should prop up to lose.:)
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
All of that clan are misogynists to the core. As such, not suitable for dog catcher, let alone public office.
I read a quote the other day, that one of the clan advocated that people who felt they were being sexually harassed should simply get a different job... wait... what?
meh.

Since: Mar 11

Dowagiac, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2888
Jan 23, 2013
 
You think they would step up to the republican side should he run?
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>If Rand Paul were to run as a Republican.. nope wouldn't get my vote. Then again if Rand Paul were to run 3rd party I probably still would not vote for him. He is not his old man. I only vote in an attempt to bring in a third party to a two party system. I am sure that there are some, if not most Libertarians that would vote for him though.

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2889
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Educated What wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe the constitution but not our government. i mean why do we use two bibles to inaugurate the president? Why do we have God in the pledge? Why do we have God on our money? Why are most politicians religious? Because secular is a word that makes you think that our government is that way.
We have God on the Pledge because insecure, fear-mongering people like you put it there to scare American citizens during the MaCarthy communism nonsense. It was not there in the beginning, nor was in God we trust on our money for 150 years. History is evidently not your strong point. Read and learn:

Between 1924 and 1954, the Pledge of Allegiance was worded:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1954, during the McCarthy era and communism scare, Congress passed a bill, which was signed into law, to add the words "under God." The current Pledge reads:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_pled1.h...

and:

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy (1855-1931). It was originally published in The Youth's Companion on September 8, 1892. Bellamy had hoped that the pledge would be used by citizens in any country.

In its original form it read:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
In 1923, the words, "the Flag of the United States of America" were added. At this time it read:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," creating the 31-word pledge we say today. Bellamy's daughter objected to this alteration. Today it reads:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

http://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm

As far as on money:
During the height of the cold war, on July 11, 1955, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed Public Law 140 making it mandatory that all coinage and paper currency display the motto.

Read the entire history here: http://www.allabouthistory.org/in-god-we-trus...

Fundamentalist Christians are totally unaware of history. Most of you think the bible was written in Elizabethan English.

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2890
Jan 23, 2013
 
Educated What wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet we are still the majority and you're not.
It's not a majority when there are 39,000 different sects of Christianity, all of whom you say are not 'real' Christians and damn to hell because they don't believe as you do.

Should you sit down and talk to each of our Congressmen, you'd condemn them to hell too. The broad brush 'Christian' is just to fool yourselves into thinking you are a majority, when in truth, you are each a minority. But all of you have the same type of learning disability.

“If God was real”

Since: Jan 10

He would look like this

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2891
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Evolution has not been proven.

“There are other issues.”

Since: May 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2892
Jan 23, 2013
 
water_nymph wrote:
<quoted text>It's not a majority when there are 39,000 different sects of Christianity, all of whom you say are not 'real' Christians and damn to hell because they don't believe as you do.

Should you sit down and talk to each of our Congressmen, you'd condemn them to hell too. The broad brush 'Christian' is just to fool yourselves into thinking you are a majority, when in truth, you are each a minority. But all of you have the same type of learning disability.
They are theists and they still believe so they are the majority. It like not all non believers are really atheists, you have Buddhist which is a religion, agnostic, etc... The fool is you.

“There are other issues.”

Since: May 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2893
Jan 23, 2013
 
water_nymph wrote:
<quoted text>It's not a majority when there are 39,000 different sects of Christianity, all of whom you say are not 'real' Christians and damn to hell because they don't believe as you do.

Should you sit down and talk to each of our Congressmen, you'd condemn them to hell too. The broad brush 'Christian' is just to fool yourselves into thinking you are a majority, when in truth, you are each a minority. But all of you have the same type of learning disability.
Sorry but I don't condemn anyone or push my religion.

“There are other issues.”

Since: May 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2894
Jan 23, 2013
 
water_nymph wrote:
<quoted text>We have God on the Pledge because insecure, fear-mongering people like you put it there to scare American citizens during the MaCarthy communism nonsense. It was not there in the beginning, nor was in God we trust on our money for 150 years. History is evidently not your strong point. Read and learn:

Between 1924 and 1954, the Pledge of Allegiance was worded:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1954, during the McCarthy era and communism scare, Congress passed a bill, which was signed into law, to add the words "under God." The current Pledge reads:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_pled1.h...

and:

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy (1855-1931). It was originally published in The Youth's Companion on September 8, 1892. Bellamy had hoped that the pledge would be used by citizens in any country.

In its original form it read:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
In 1923, the words, "the Flag of the United States of America" were added. At this time it read:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," creating the 31-word pledge we say today. Bellamy's daughter objected to this alteration. Today it reads:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

http://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm

As far as on money:
During the height of the cold war, on July 11, 1955, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed Public Law 140 making it mandatory that all coinage and paper currency display the motto.

Read the entire history here: http://www.allabouthistory.org/in-god-we-trus...

Fundamentalist Christians are totally unaware of history. Most of you think the bible was written in Elizabethan English.
Again a lay opinion. It doesn't matter what you say, it's still there whether you like it or not. Our own president, senators, congressman, governors, and mayors are religious. So good luck with what you believe. Secular? I think not.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2895
Jan 23, 2013
 
I wonder how many more times the Christholes will use the argument to authority and bandwagon logical fallacies this month?

Wanna take bets how many more times they will make retarded asshats out of themselves like this?
Lincoln

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2896
Jan 23, 2013
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
I wonder how many more times
Wonder ... if you can post something your daughter would be proud to read?

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2897
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Educated What wrote:
<quoted text>
They are theists and they still believe so they are the majority. It like not all non believers are really atheists, you have Buddhist which is a religion, agnostic, etc... The fool is you.
By that reckoning, you have to put all theists in the same bucket, including Muslims, Shikhs, Satanists and the whole lot. How does that work for you?

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2898
Jan 23, 2013
 
Educated What wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry but I don't condemn anyone or push my religion.
The hell you don't.

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2899
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Educated What wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet we are still the majority and you're not.
And numbers are validity, right?

The followers of Hitler and other leaders thought he was right, too. The numbers said so.

Using numbers is really the lamest of all reasons to believe that Christianity is correct. First of all, 2/3 of the world population says you're wrong. Secondly, every sect of your own religion outside the one you belong to says you're wrong and going to hell for it. If numbers count, the sect of Christianity to which you belong is not that of a 'true' Christian.

You want to use numbers to back up your belief but when it comes down to Christians all believing the same thing, they don't. Most of them don't even use Jesus as a guide, but give Paul the status of God. Ask any Christian what Jesus said on a controversial subject and you'll get a quote from Paul. Every single time.

So if you want to use numbers, go ahead. By the standards of most other Christians, you're headed straight to the pits of hell.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 2,801 - 2,820 of5,550
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••