Atheism and cowardice

Atheism and cowardice

There are 12663 comments on the Conservapedia story from Nov 18, 2011, titled Atheism and cowardice. In it, Conservapedia reports that:

Have any of the New Atheists toured [[Islam]]ic countries giving lectures in which they condemn [[Allah]], [[Muhammad]], Islam, or Muslims? Have any of them debated Muslims in Islamic countries? Have any of them been interviewed on Al Jazeera? Have any of them written entire books in which they condemn Allah, Muhammad, Islam, or Muslims? Have they ... (more)

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Conservapedia.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#9023 May 29, 2013
Ray puelerico wrote:
<quoted text>
bob, i know by know im getting quoite repetetive, but please, bear with me here. im not quite familiar with this framework youre using to judgge the bible. im also not sure how youre translating the actions to match todays situations and moral standards. but lets look at your list breifly before i pass out from exaustion. now i cant in all honesty give fair hearing to each point, so well have to take each one one by one at a later point.
slavery- a careful look at the laws revolving "slaves", and one sees peculiar things. the slavery of the hebrews was not the slavery of the west. the slaves of the hebrews were more like indentured servant, but with more freedom. also, we must be careful not to forc our cultural behaviors and ways onto the bible. selling ones self or ones family member into slavery was one way of ensuring that they were fed, alive, and that debts were paid. there was no welfare back then lol. you couldnt just go down to the person you owed money to and ask for an extension. in this time, money wasnt just paper, money was food, cattle, whatever you had of immediate worth. so its only logical that someone might become a servant to feed his family or pay off a debt. plus, the bible says every seven years the servants were to go free. i could say more on this, but a careful examination would be enough to make the slaery point invalid.
war/ genocide advocation- i assume your talking abut the canaanites? well on war n general, war was a way of life for all people of that time. it was necesary to survive. remember that not to long ago in the history of the world, there were others who wished to expand their territories to, and so war wa inevitable. but more to the point, the bible never makes race a reason for killing a person. the canaanites were killed because of the wickedness they were commiting. and when god speaks to araham, he tells him that hes not gonna give him the land just et because the canaanites werent wicked enough for him to just up and kick them out. God was giving them a chance to change. also, its important to note that when the isrealites started doing the same as the canaanites, god sent other countries to enslave them and kick their behinds too. so it wasnt just because of race. it was because of wickedness.
2nd class citizens- this one is not to much of a disagreement. the time period was patriarchal. but one must also examine the culture as well. a woman became a judge in israel, tht was no joke. the culture had a structure that, although in modern times we may not agree with, it was made to help with the survival of the nation. now if we are to examine the culture of the time, well also find that women were not without rights. in proverbs, we see that a woman had the ability to buy and sell, that she ran the house, and had she had significance in her own way. children as well had rights, but remember that children are under a different set of rules. they have to learn responsabilitys before they can begiven privilages, and so the bible isnt specific with rules on children.
Classic troll block text attack.

All creationists are trolls who know the game is up. Why try so hard to push your cult in the atheist forum? Just f*ck off and play with yousrselves.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9024 May 29, 2013
Ray puelerico wrote:
<quoted text>
bob, everything i wrote follows a line of logic given a biblical worldview.
Your "logic" is nothing of the sort-- I've tried to be patent here, but you simply do not use logic at all-- you do use emotional appeal, which is not a valid argument method.
Ray puelerico wrote:
your really not raising points that have anything to do with dismissing the logic of my argument.
This is because you are using emotional appeal--not logic.
Ray puelerico wrote:
but you have made your dislike of certain details of my explaination clear lol.
You have failed to show the bible is NOT evil--i.e that it does NOT CONTAIN much that is evil.

In fact? You keep ignoring that fact...
Ray puelerico wrote:
so my brother, lets examine briefly what you put, and then im going to bed.
Okay.
Ray puelerico wrote:
you dislike whats in the bible, and thats cool.
I find very little within it, that is worthy of human morality.

The majority is beneath us, as sentient beings.

Not the least of with the whole master/slave BS that Jesus demands of his followers-- human kind has moved beyond master/slave mentality.

At least I would like to hope so-- but your bible is BASED on master/slave ideas.

It's Bronze-age garbage.
Ray puelerico wrote:
the bible has different categories which divide its aterial.
So? Fundamentally, it's flawed master/slave ideas-- ALL of it falls back to that failure.
Ray puelerico wrote:
you have commands, narratives, examples, explainations, etc. all of which needs to be taken in relation to its purpose and its significance.
Not really. It is fundamentally and fatally flawed. See above.
Ray puelerico wrote:
so i have no problem with you not liking the stor of abraham. he was never supposed to have a concubine in the first place.
So? The bible's attitude appears to condone-- no--it appears to PRAISE men who have concubines! Abraham is LIFTED UP, more than once place.

And the way he treats his wife? Abysmal by modern ethical standards-- he treats her like a THING that he OWNS.

Back to that master/slave thing all over again.
Ray puelerico wrote:
the bible often sets an ideal, and then allows for the reality of matters to be described within its pages. so your not making any claims which are significant to the original discussion. but i digress.
It's an ugly-UGLY book. I expect SUPERIOR WORKMANSHIP from ... a god.
Ray puelerico wrote:
now, you blieve the bible is immoral, and thats fine. i would like to know not only how you came to this conclusion, and the process by which you did. not because i want to be a pain, but i think i see a jump that you keep making that im not sure exactly where its coming from. your making moral claaims about the bible, but im not sure your statement allow for sufficient foundational understanding.
See above. The bible's fundamental imagry is master/slave.

There's the ultimate master, god. Then, there's Abraham/Moses/et-al, who are masters over the common rabble, but slaves to god.

And of course, women are always in the role of slaves to the .... men.

Fast-forward to the NT, and it's master/slave all over again.

Joseph? Master over Mary-- she had NO SAY, it was 100% up to his choice to marry or no. She was, once again, the slave here.

Then Jesus comes along: master again, the disciples? Slaves. And the women? 3rd base... behind all the .. men.

It's a Bronze Age Mythos-- long past time to discard such ugliness.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9025 May 29, 2013
Ray puelerico wrote:
<quoted text>
bob, you missed your own slip. morals are intrinsic to the foundtion of ones views, you cannot have a strictly secular view, when it comes to law.
Bullshit! Secularism recognizes NO superior authority, other than ourselves-- that whole We The People that begins the Preamble thing.

Religion? Pretends there is a magical JuJu-Beast who magically and telepathically "hands down morality" from somewhere or other.

Of course, NOBODY sees this JuJu-Beast but the "special" people who are "specially chosen" or some other bullshit.

So I call 100% bullshit here-- UNLESS YOU CAN PRODUCE THE GOD?

Then it is HEARSAY from said god-- who may not have even existed!

So bullshit--bullshit--BULLSHIT.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9026 May 29, 2013
Ray puelerico wrote:
<quoted text>
again, your making assumptions based on personal beliefs about the bible. your moral claims continue to lack the foundation necessary to judge it, and you miss the mark on assuming that we would know why a God would allow the bible to exist. it claims more knowledge than one can reasonably defend.
I explained previously.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9027 May 29, 2013
Ray puelerico wrote:
<quoted text>
bob, i know by know im getting quoite repetetive, but please, bear with me here. im not quite familiar with this framework youre using to judgge the bible. im also not sure how youre translating the actions to match todays situations and moral standards. but lets look at your list breifly before i pass out from exaustion. now i cant in all honesty give fair hearing to each point, so well have to take each one one by one at a later point.
slavery- a careful look at the laws revolving "slaves", and one sees peculiar things. the slavery of the hebrews was not the slavery of the west. the slaves of the hebrews were more like indentured servant, but with more freedom. also, we must be careful not to forc our cultural behaviors and ways onto the bible. selling ones self or ones family member into slavery was one way of ensuring that they were fed, alive, and that debts were paid. there was no welfare back then lol. you couldnt just go down to the person you owed money to and ask for an extension. in this time, money wasnt just paper, money was food, cattle, whatever you had of immediate worth. so its only logical that someone might become a servant to feed his family or pay off a debt. plus, the bible says every seven years the servants were to go free. i could say more on this, but a careful examination would be enough to make the slaery point invalid.
war/ genocide advocation- i assume your talking abut the canaanites? well on war n general, war was a way of life for all people of that time. it was necesary to survive. remember that not to long ago in the history of the world, there were others who wished to expand their territories to, and so war wa inevitable. but more to the point, the bible never makes race a reason for killing a person. the canaanites were killed because of the wickedness they were commiting. and when god speaks to araham, he tells him that hes not gonna give him the land just et because the canaanites werent wicked enough for him to just up and kick them out. God was giving them a chance to change. also, its important to note that when the isrealites started doing the same as the canaanites, god sent other countries to enslave them and kick their behinds too. so it wasnt just because of race. it was because of wickedness.
2nd class citizens- this one is not to much of a disagreement. the time period was patriarchal. but one must also examine the culture as well. a woman became a judge in israel, tht was no joke. the culture had a structure that, although in modern times we may not agree with, it was made to help with the survival of the nation. now if we are to examine the culture of the time, well also find that women were not without rights. in proverbs, we see that a woman had the ability to buy and sell, that she ran the house, and had she had significance in her own way. children as well had rights, but remember that children are under a different set of rules. they have to learn responsabilitys before they can begiven privilages, and so the bible isnt specific with rules on children.
Your wall-of-words is ignored, until and IF you address the following complaints I have about the ugly bible:

The bible fails all *modern* tests of morality.

** it advocates slavery

** it advocates war/genocide against non-members

** it teaches women are 2nd class beings, nothing more than property

** it teaches much the same attitude with respect to children

** it teaches people they should NEVER question authority

** it teaches that knowledge is not only evil, it's literally
forbidden (the very first "lesson" hammers that one home)

** it teaches to never trust your senses, but only your "feelings" (a classic way to subjugated people into slavery or slave-like behavior)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9028 May 29, 2013
Ray puelerico wrote:
slavery- a careful look at the laws revolving "slaves", and one sees peculiar things. the slavery of the hebrews was not the slavery of the west. the slaves of the hebrews were more like indentured servant, but with more freedom.
BULLSHIT-BULLSHIT-BULLSHIT-BUL LSHIT-BULLSHIT-BULLSHIT-BULLSH IT!!!!

HOW ON EARTH can you DARE claim "more freedom"????

The SLAVERY we are speaking of was ROMAN slavery!

And?

Your ugly NEW TESTAMENT commands: "slaves OBEY your MASTERS" and is even WORSE! It clearly states "GOD made you a SLAVE, so shut up and BE a slave..."

That whole MASTER/SLAVE thing.... again.

Don't give me that SH)T about "not like modern slavery".

BULLSHIT!

“There are other issues.”

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#9029 May 29, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>Classic troll block text attack.

All creationists are trolls who know the game is up. Why try so hard to push your cult in the atheist forum? Just f*ck off and play with yousrselves.
Sceptic's words of stupidity. Why do you imagine people playing with themselves?

Since: May 13

Trenton, NJ

#9030 May 29, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Too late: I once asked a Jewish Rabbi about this verse-- nevermind why I had the opportunity. But he, being a Rabbi, was fluent in Hebrew. He agrees with me: the unborn is NOT a human, according to the bible.
I've also corroborated using various commentaries and Hebrew<->English translations.
Again: the bible equates unborn to less than human.
In fact? The bible clearly and unambiguously states LIFE BEGINS WITH THE FIRST BREATH--AT BIRTH in other words!
But nice try by you, at apologetics.
i have to go to work, but very quickly, the standard view of the verse by hebrew/ rabbinic scholars is that the deathpenalty is for the life of the child, not the mother. the language indicates the subject is the child, given that the child was the original subject of the previous phrase. also, the reason the person would have to pay the price of the child was because when you presented the child, you paid an offering of sorts for the child. so since the person who strikes the child is responsible for the early birth of the child, then he is responsible also for the payment. now i have no problem with this verse being taken either way, but im willing to stand behind that interpretation given the usage of the words.

Since: May 13

Trenton, NJ

#9031 May 29, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
BULLSHIT-BULLSHIT-BULLSHIT-BUL LSHIT-BULLSHIT-BULLSHIT-BULLSH IT!!!!
HOW ON EARTH can you DARE claim "more freedom"????
The SLAVERY we are speaking of was ROMAN slavery!
And?
Your ugly NEW TESTAMENT commands: "slaves OBEY your MASTERS" and is even WORSE! It clearly states "GOD made you a SLAVE, so shut up and BE a slave..."
That whole MASTER/SLAVE thing.... again.
Don't give me that SH)T about "not like modern slavery".
BULLSHIT!
bob, you werent specific in which timeperiod slavery you were refering to. but since you ment roman slaves, perhaps you should read up on roman law and how christianity played a role in breaking the lines between free and slave. the part right after the verse you quote has a command for the masters too. now before you claim that roman slavery was like the western slavery, you have to read up on history. roman slavery was slavery none the less, but your pushing your cultural ideals onto a culture of that time. so if you want to really claim that the slavery of that time was like the slavery of the west, you have to back that claim up with some serious historical analysis. there are reasons why the bible doesnt up an tell christians to free all their slaves, and it has to do with roman law. also, historical evidence suggests that to break down tjhose dividing lines by going on a kissing campaigne. another note, remember that the bible says that there is neither slave nor free, jew nor greek, etc. in christ. im rushing in my post but im sure you get the poin. when i come back ill give you some non christian books that discribe the culture of the time.

Since: May 13

Trenton, NJ

#9032 May 29, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Your wall-of-words is ignored, until and IF you address the following complaints I have about the ugly bible:
The bible fails all *modern* tests of morality.
** it advocates slavery
** it advocates war/genocide against non-members
** it teaches women are 2nd class beings, nothing more than property
** it teaches much the same attitude with respect to children
** it teaches people they should NEVER question authority
** it teaches that knowledge is not only evil, it's literally
forbidden (the very first "lesson" hammers that one home)
** it teaches to never trust your senses, but only your "feelings" (a classic way to subjugated people into slavery or slave-like behavior)
bob, the wall of words was adressing as best as possible the complaints you made. but to be more accurate, let me ask you something. you set up a moral attack on the bible based upon modern morals. what i would like to know, putting all biblical complaints, why our standard should come against the standard of the bible given the cultural shift over such a long period of time? its one thing to examine the bible and claim that its bad. but how do you effectively make one standard over the other while taking into account cultural shifting over the centuries? much of your argument doesnt effectively make a difference because its not engaging it to a serious depth other than dislike of something one culture did.

Since: May 12

Las Vegas, NV

#9033 May 29, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Too late: I once asked a Jewish Rabbi about this verse-- nevermind why I had the opportunity. But he, being a Rabbi, was fluent in Hebrew. He agrees with me: the unborn is NOT a human, according to the bible.
I've also corroborated using various commentaries and Hebrew<->English translations.
Again: the bible equates unborn to less than human.
In fact? The bible clearly and unambiguously states LIFE BEGINS WITH THE FIRST BREATH--AT BIRTH in other words!
But nice try by you, at apologetics.
..Yeah......According to the "Bible" ...At the instance Jesus was conceived ...He already had a name and a gender ....

Life begins at conception ....well, According to the Bible ..

Since: May 12

Las Vegas, NV

#9034 May 29, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
BULLSHIT-BULLSHIT-BULLSHIT-BUL LSHIT-BULLSHIT-BULLSHIT-BULLSH IT!!!!
HOW ON EARTH can you DARE claim "more freedom"????
The SLAVERY we are speaking of was ROMAN slavery!
And?
Your ugly NEW TESTAMENT commands: "slaves OBEY your MASTERS" and is even WORSE! It clearly states "GOD made you a SLAVE, so shut up and BE a slave..."
That whole MASTER/SLAVE thing.... again.
Don't give me that SH)T about "not like modern slavery".
BULLSHIT!
hmmmm....?...You're a little more emotional ,today than normal ...Does "someone" need a hug ..??

Since: May 13

Trenton, NJ

#9035 May 29, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Your "logic" is nothing of the sort-- I've tried to be patent here, but you simply do not use logic at all-- you do use emotional appeal, which is not a valid argument method.
<quoted text>
This is because you are using emotional appeal--not logic.
<quoted text>
You have failed to show the bible is NOT evil--i.e that it does NOT CONTAIN much that is evil.
In fact? You keep ignoring that fact...
<quoted text>
Okay.
<quoted text>
I find very little within it, that is worthy of human morality.
The majority is beneath us, as sentient beings.
Not the least of with the whole master/slave BS that Jesus demands of his followers-- human kind has moved beyond master/slave mentality.
At least I would like to hope so-- but your bible is BASED on master/slave ideas.
It's Bronze-age garbage.
<quoted text>
So? Fundamentally, it's flawed master/slave ideas-- ALL of it falls back to that failure.
<quoted text>
Not really. It is fundamentally and fatally flawed. See above.
<quoted text>
So? The bible's attitude appears to condone-- no--it appears to PRAISE men who have concubines! Abraham is LIFTED UP, more than once place.
And the way he treats his wife? Abysmal by modern ethical standards-- he treats her like a THING that he OWNS.
Back to that master/slave thing all over again.
<quoted text>
It's an ugly-UGLY book. I expect SUPERIOR WORKMANSHIP from ... a god.
<quoted text>
See above. The bible's fundamental imagry is master/slave.
There's the ultimate master, god. Then, there's Abraham/Moses/et-al, who are masters over the common rabble, but slaves to god.
And of course, women are always in the role of slaves to the .... men.
Fast-forward to the NT, and it's master/slave all over again.
Joseph? Master over Mary-- she had NO SAY, it was 100% up to his choice to marry or no. She was, once again, the slave here.
Then Jesus comes along: master again, the disciples? Slaves. And the women? 3rd base... behind all the .. men.
It's a Bronze Age Mythos-- long past time to discard such ugliness.
bosee a few points your making, so let me condense them so i can rush off to work before im late lol.

point 1: emotional appeal, not logic

none of my arguments rely on emotion. they follow a trail of thoght given a biblical world view.

point 2: the bible is evil, prove its not

bob, youre the one making the moral claim that it is. but youve set yourself up for double duty. you not only have to prove that its evil based on the standard youre using, but you also have to show logically that your moral framework is valid and adequte for attacking the standards in the bible while taking acccount cultural shift. i dont even have to like the book to show my point valid. but the fact that you repeatedly present the idea of the bible being evil as fact shows that ou have presuppositions that color your view on the bible before yo even get to proving that it is. you simply clam that it is, raise a could things that you dont like, and then leave the work half done.

point 3: the bible is based on the master/slave system, and its outdated, beneath us even.

well my simple point would be to look around you. everyone is subject to someone s authority. if you have a boss, you are subject yo his authority, unless you want to get fired. what it seems to me is that you haave an issue with how the bible presents authority through its cultural glasses, something i never see you account for. once again, you have the task of showing how you can account for cultural shift and still attack what the bible claims as moral. also, when it comes to abraham, he had a concubine, so what? the bible never says," abraham, yo, nice concubine, you did a slammin job there". lol the bible actually makes it clear that abraham did wrong in taking on himself the task of getting a child. the bible shows the flaws of their people, but it never up and says its good. more often than not, the bible exposes the flaws of the people it has in it.

Since: May 13

Trenton, NJ

#9036 May 29, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Bullshit! Secularism recognizes NO superior authority, other than ourselves-- that whole We The People that begins the Preamble thing.
Religion? Pretends there is a magical JuJu-Beast who magically and telepathically "hands down morality" from somewhere or other.
Of course, NOBODY sees this JuJu-Beast but the "special" people who are "specially chosen" or some other bullshit.
So I call 100% bullshit here-- UNLESS YOU CAN PRODUCE THE GOD?
Then it is HEARSAY from said god-- who may not have even existed!
So bullshit--bullshit--BULLSHIT.
bob, if you read the rest of the comment, it goes on to say that morality is neutral in respect to what you can categorize it as. you comment makes no sense in respect to what i was tryingto explain, bit we can discuss that whenim back from work.
spudgun

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#9037 May 29, 2013
Ray puelerico wrote:
<quoted text>point 2: the bible is evil, prove its not
? Its not up to us to prove the Bible. The onus is on the believers.

However I can say there are some cherry picked verses such as from the sermon of the mount, which can be seen as enlightened, for the time.

Have a read of evilbible.com and learn how evil the bible really is. It is not worthy of any God, and the thinking is barbaric and primitive (except for a few bits). Just like the Quran it should be consigned to the trash bin of history by all right thinking people.

Richardfs

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#9038 May 29, 2013
number four wrote:
<quoted text>..Yeah......According to the "Bible" ...At the instance Jesus was conceived ...He already had a name and a gender ....
Life begins at conception ....well, According to the Bible ..
And we all know how accurate the bibull is.

Since: May 13

Trenton, NJ

#9039 May 29, 2013
spudgun wrote:
<quoted text>
? Its not up to us to prove the Bible. The onus is on the believers.
However I can say there are some cherry picked verses such as from the sermon of the mount, which can be seen as enlightened, for the time.
Have a read of evilbible.com and learn how evil the bible really is. It is not worthy of any God, and the thinking is barbaric and primitive (except for a few bits). Just like the Quran it should be consigned to the trash bin of history by all right thinking people.
i have, and the truth is after much study there isnt much that i cnt understand when i take into account the progression of history and the cultural shift. its not a common view to see the bible as evil, because you first have to have a moral framework by which to judge the bible. meaning that most people come in with half the table set against the bible on first viewing. but on another note, bob is the one making a positive claim to knowledge. hes claiming that the bible is evil. well i merely ask by what standard hes judging it by, and how does he account for cultural shift? see the thing for me is that when we take the bible as a whole, you see a progression of laws leading the people to stop the things they are doing one step at a time. its the common view that the bible has categories of its words. so some things tell the history, others tell the ommands, others still may list the faults of their people. i dont see it as being evil any more than i can say that every word in it is good. people have to analyze it in that way.
spudgun

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#9040 May 29, 2013
Ray puelerico wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible is either the word of God or it is man made. It is not a mixture of the two.

If yo think it is God's word you should get yourself down a church. If you think its man made then the Bible is no different to any other book, and religion is a fraud.

Since: May 13

Trenton, NJ

#9041 May 29, 2013
spudgun wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible is either the word of God or it is man made. It is not a mixture of the two.
If yo think it is God's word you should get yourself down a church. If you think its man made then the Bible is no different to any other book, and religion is a fraud.
i do believe that the bible is inspired by God, written by the hands of men, in the way that men of that time understood and could interact with. i couldnt see where you quoted me,so i cant directly interact with whaat you quoted.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9042 May 29, 2013
Ray puelerico wrote:
<quoted text>
i have to go to work, but very quickly, the standard view of the verse by hebrew/ rabbinic scholars is that the deathpenalty is for the life of the child, not the mother.
You have a source? No? Interesting. I think you are just making it up, here.
Ray puelerico wrote:
the language indicates the subject is the child, given that the child was the original subject of the previous phrase.
False. Read it again.
Ray puelerico wrote:
also, the reason the person would have to pay the price of the child was because when you presented the child, you paid an offering of sorts for the child.
Read it again. You are wrong. Still.
Ray puelerico wrote:
so since the person who strikes the child is responsible for the early birth of the child, then he is responsible also for the payment.
Payment but NOT DEATH-- and it's not "early birth"--that is pure-D apologetic-bullshit.
Ray puelerico wrote:
now i have no problem with this verse being taken either way, but im willing to stand behind that interpretation given the usage of the words.
Key phrase: "interpretation". Translation: "twist it to match my pre-concieved prejudices".

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 min Into The Night 48,653
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 5 min Richardfs 5,698
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 1 hr JustASkeptic 40
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 7 hr scientia potentia... 23,511
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 9 hr Thinking 21,875
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 10 hr ChristineM 258,041
News Louisiana Christians reclaim safe space by runn... 12 hr Mikko 1
More from around the web