Atheism and cowardice

Atheism and cowardice

There are 12674 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.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9390 Jun 15, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Well that can vary because economics and poverty are a factor as well. but it depends upon what type of crime you are talking about.
Why? Crime is crime--right?

Or is there some weird imaginary-space where crime IS NOT crime?

In any case? Pick one. Let's take murder.

Do you think murder per person is **higher** now, than 20, 50 or 100 years ago?

Or is it **lower**?

Answer: it's lower. Significantly lower, as compared to 100 years back.

In fact, crime per-person is lower. It's just that, due to there being a whole lot more people, there are quite a few more people who are criminals.

But, crime per **person** is actually lower.

More to the point, criminals get caught, today, a **lot** more than they did in the past-- modern computers and such, have a lot to do with that.

It is important to compare apples to apples, when talking about such things as this.
number four

Since: May 12

Las Vegas, NV

#9391 Jun 15, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Teresa was a monster. No two ways about that.
And?
She spent the majority of her time smoozing and kissing-azz to the various politicians around the world, to get even MORE illicit monies pouring into her embezzlement schemes.
She always flew via the most luxurious ways, too...
... nothing was too good for that egomaniac.
..Look , Mother Teresa isn't here to defend herself ...but, any honest look at her life and it is plain to see ,that she did not live a a life of luxury and excess ..

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9392 Jun 15, 2013
Seeker wrote:
I see that as a **good** thing.

Back in the 60's, people simply remained miserable, instead of a healthy moving-on of divorce.

When two people grow apart, it is **criminal** to force them to remain locked together.

It's high time we dropped the idiotic idea of "marriage is permanent" anyhow.

It **ought** to be incredibly difficult to marry, but dirt-simple to divorce.

THAT would drop your divorce rate to near-nothing... if people had to jump incredible hurdles to **get** married in the first place.

Most would simply opt to live together, until they decided not to.

Better all around...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9393 Jun 15, 2013
Seeker wrote:
As far as Psychology goes, it's hard to find because nobody seems to want to post those statistics, but I have a College friend of mine who is one, and he quietly tells me about the increase and how he has a minimum 6 week waiting list. I can find it if I really look hard, but it looks like there aren't enough Psychologists today to meet the demand.
Means nothing. Absolutely **nothing**-- NOT how YOU mean.

Is there a trend for fewer people entering the profession, or has it remained the same?

But regardless of that...

Is the stigma of "going to the shrink" changing, such that people who formerly would just suffer, are now feeling freedom to go get professional help?

Is it that more and more folk are getting medical insurance that **finally** includes mental health as well?

There are a **lot** of factors in play, here.

But **none** equate to "people are more crazy" as **you** tried to imply.
number four

Since: May 12

Las Vegas, NV

#9394 Jun 15, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Your point? No? Hmmmm...
<quoted text>
Not in your buybull, silly boyo-- can you point to this ... "golden rule" in your BuyBull? No?
Interesting.... yet you vainly (and falsely) attempt to attribute it to your Jewsus....
... why?
<quoted text>
That one? You Genuine Christians™ NEVER-EVER-EVER follow.
Ever.
If you DID?
YOU WOULD NEVER, EVER, ACCUSE SOMEONE OF NOT BEING SAVED.
You would simply assume that they WERE ALREADY. End of story.
But you DO NOT DO THAT, DO YOU?
Nope.
YOU JUDGE.
Hypocrites.
<quoted text>
Sure, sure-- life is a terminal disease, nobody gets out alive, and all that.
You have a point? No?
We all die-- and **kaput** that's it. End of story.
You have something-- ANYTHING-- that proves otherwise?
Because **I** have thousands of documents showing that when the BRAIN dies-- so does the PERSONALITY....
..boy , you sure do go on and on ; when it come to the Bible ..

A myth does not enrage rational people ..So, what's really going on ..??

It is time to admit you are angry and you blame God ..?
number four

Since: May 12

Las Vegas, NV

#9395 Jun 15, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
You think I'm angry? Hmmmm.... you really need to quit projecting your own anger onto others...
..Denial..?...the river in N. Africa ..

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9396 Jun 15, 2013
Seeker wrote:
And as far as Postal incidents and school shootings, this is why the gun debate rages so hot right now whereas it did not before.
The US is a very violent culture.

Always has been.

But, lest you forget, there were periods in it's past, where gun related deaths were many-many times higher than they are today.

Not all that distant, either... the 1890's, the 1910-1920's and so on.

Know your history, or be seen as kind of a fool.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9397 Jun 15, 2013
number four wrote:
<quoted text>
1) It's okay to admit ,you don't know something ...
Good of you to admit your ignorance-- but I **do** understand why evolution is a fact **and** a theory.
number four wrote:
2)..WHO'S DOING , THE THREATS ...NOW..??
Not me. It was an observation. Without modern understanding of **evolution** modern **medicine** simply would not exist.

Without that? Our crowded living conditions, would create massive, and repeated plagues. The odds of **you** being dead by **now** would be much higher than not-dead.

Except for evolutionary-based modern **scientific** medical practice.
number four wrote:
3) Much Obliged
Google is your friend.
LBer

Long Beach, CA

#9398 Jun 15, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
You think I'm angry? Hmmmm.... you really need to quit projecting your own anger onto others...
Yes Seeker, Bob is definitely angry. He is also a simpleton, yet he also has passion (quite a bit, thus the anger in his case).

To debate with him one must speak simply...yet like most who are passionate about their faith, nothing you say can dissuade him from his views. He can not see his circular reasoning, nor his fanaticism.

But far all that, I still enjoy his writings, again, for their passion alone.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9399 Jun 15, 2013
LBer wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes Seeker, Bob is definitely angry. He is also a simpleton, yet he also has passion (quite a bit, thus the anger in his case).
To debate with him one must speak simply...yet like most who are passionate about their faith, nothing you say can dissuade him from his views. He can not see his circular reasoning, nor his fanaticism.
But far all that, I still enjoy his writings, again, for their passion alone.
At least he has the appearance of trying.

So many god-botherers don't even do that much; they repeat the same old stuff I heard as a child and have since dismissed.

One would think, that they could come up with something ... new.

Something novel... after all, they've been at this game for 2000 years or so.

:)
Lincoln

United States

#9400 Jun 15, 2013
(Reuters)- Delving into the controversial relationship between government and religion, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to consider whether a town in New York could allow members of the public, who in practice were nearly all Christian clergy, to open meetings with a prayer.

Two residents sued Greece, New York, in 2008, saying it was endorsing Christianity, a violation of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment guarantee of separation of church and state.

Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens said the vast majority of prayer-givers since the practice started in 1999 were Christian ministers. Attendees would often be asked to join in or bow their heads, they alleged.



The Supreme Court ruled in a 1983 case, Marsh v. Chambers, that legislative sessions could begin with a prayer in most circumstances, citing the "unique history" of the practice throughout U.S. history.

The new case gives the nine justices the opportunity to outline "neutral principles" that would allow government entities to hold prayers without violating the Constitution, said Marci Hamilton, a First Amendment expert at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York.

"The hard part for the court is drawing the boundary lines," she added, predicting a close vote among the justices. "I have no doubt it will be a 5-4 decision."

Despite the 1983 precedent, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York ruled against the town. A district court had previously supported the town's position by dismissing the lawsuit filed by Galloway and Stephens.

1989 PRECEDENT

The appeals court, in an opinion by Judge Guido Calabresi, cited another Supreme Court case from 1989, which he said, "suggested that legislative prayers invoking particular sectarian beliefs" could violate the Constitution.

Although the town did in theory allow anyone to volunteer, it "neither publicly solicited volunteers to invocation nor informed members of the general public that volunteers would be considered or accepted," Calabresi said.

He stressed that the court was not saying that government bodies can never open a session with prayer.

A total of 18 states and 49 members of the U.S. House of Representatives joined briefs asking the court to take the case.

The Alliance for Defending Freedom, a group that describes itself as an advocate for the rights of people to express their faith, is spearheading the town's legal fight.

The group's lawyers point out that the town has never regulated the content of prayers and did not discriminate in selecting prayer-givers.

"A few people should not be able to extinguish the traditions of our nation merely because they heard something they didn't like," Brett Harvey, one of the town's lawyers, said in a statement.

Galloway and Stephens have the support of another advocacy group, Americans United For Separation of Church and State.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/20/us-...

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#9401 Jun 15, 2013
number four wrote:
<quoted text>..boy , you sure do go on and on ; when it come to the Bible ..
A myth does not enrage rational people ..So, what's really going on ..??
It is time to admit you are angry and you blame God ..?
Its actually time to admit you don't understand that atheism is a lack of belief in god & not a denial?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#9402 Jun 15, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
(Reuters)- Delving into the controversial relationship between government and religion, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to consider whether a town in New York could allow members of the public, who in practice were nearly all Christian clergy, to open meetings with a prayer.
Two residents sued Greece, New York, in 2008, saying it was endorsing Christianity, a violation of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment guarantee of separation of church and state.
Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens said the vast majority of prayer-givers since the practice started in 1999 were Christian ministers. Attendees would often be asked to join in or bow their heads, they alleged.
The Supreme Court ruled in a 1983 case, Marsh v. Chambers, that legislative sessions could begin with a prayer in most circumstances, citing the "unique history" of the practice throughout U.S. history.
The new case gives the nine justices the opportunity to outline "neutral principles" that would allow government entities to hold prayers without violating the Constitution, said Marci Hamilton, a First Amendment expert at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York.
"The hard part for the court is drawing the boundary lines," she added, predicting a close vote among the justices. "I have no doubt it will be a 5-4 decision."
Despite the 1983 precedent, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York ruled against the town. A district court had previously supported the town's position by dismissing the lawsuit filed by Galloway and Stephens.
1989 PRECEDENT
The appeals court, in an opinion by Judge Guido Calabresi, cited another Supreme Court case from 1989, which he said, "suggested that legislative prayers invoking particular sectarian beliefs" could violate the Constitution.
Although the town did in theory allow anyone to volunteer, it "neither publicly solicited volunteers to invocation nor informed members of the general public that volunteers would be considered or accepted," Calabresi said.
He stressed that the court was not saying that government bodies can never open a session with prayer.
A total of 18 states and 49 members of the U.S. House of Representatives joined briefs asking the court to take the case.
The Alliance for Defending Freedom, a group that describes itself as an advocate for the rights of people to express their faith, is spearheading the town's legal fight.
The group's lawyers point out that the town has never regulated the content of prayers and did not discriminate in selecting prayer-givers.
"A few people should not be able to extinguish the traditions of our nation merely because they heard something they didn't like," Brett Harvey, one of the town's lawyers, said in a statement.
Galloway and Stephens have the support of another advocacy group, Americans United For Separation of Church and State.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/20/us-...
Wow you really have given up on being honest!!!

Poor Lincoln, unable to get his cult message across through normal means.

Now he must spam like all failed creationists.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#9403 Jun 15, 2013
number four wrote:
<quoted text>...okay...so, You're gonna stick to your guns ..(even though ,you should know better )....fine ..
Do Doctors use "scare tactics"....hmmm..??
Hell is a reality ; it is eternal separation from God .
Are you claiming your witch doctor's, to be actual doctors?

Just so you know: Your god is squiggly lines on paper, and I create squiggly lines on paper.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#9404 Jun 15, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
What? I'm a graduate of Rutgers University and I live in Massachusetts. There are Atheist all over the place. When you receive higher education, you will meet more and more Atheists. So why would you think what you did? Where do you live?
<quoted text>
Rambling? Atheists don't do kind things? My brother is an Atheist and you should see the kind things he does for people. Where is all of this mistrust coming from?
<quoted text>
Well, for all I know, maybe you don't do kind things for others.
<quoted text>
Not at all, and never mind. Pay no attention to anything that I say. It was meant as a general statement for general consumption. Seems like there is so much mistrust that I can't even say true, positive things about Atheists. That's kind of amazing.
Seeker wrote: What? I'm a graduate of Rutgers University and I live in Massachusetts. There are Atheist all over the place. When you receive higher education, you will meet more and more Atheists. So why would you think what you did? Where do you live?
Reason Personified wrote: Granted, in a university setting, you will encounter many more atheist than I will in the buybull belt.

Seeker wrote: Rambling? Atheists don't do kind things? My brother is an Atheist and you should see the kind things he does for people. Where is all of this mistrust coming from?
Reason Personified wrote: We as humans do what is necessary, and that includes kindness. Atheist (but hopefully not as atheist) do many kind things, why would you know about them, unless there are some merit badges being earned?

Seeker wrote: Well, for all I know, maybe you don't do kind things for others.
Reason Personified wrote: We do what "should" be done, and get on to the next thing that should be done, and who has time to care that there might or might not be reward? Not me?
Did you catch that "should"?
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#9405 Jun 16, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
You think I'm angry? Hmmmm.... you really need to quit projecting your own anger onto others...
You type in all caps quite a lot. Typing one word in caps is emphasis, typing many words in caps represents shouting. Or, maybe you just accidentally keep hitting your caps lock.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#9406 Jun 16, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
You type in all caps quite a lot. Typing one word in caps is emphasis, typing many words in caps represents shouting. Or, maybe you just accidentally keep hitting your caps lock.
Its better for you to talk about caps lock than reply with an actual argument.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#9407 Jun 16, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>Seeker wrote: What? I'm a graduate of Rutgers University and I live in Massachusetts. There are Atheist all over the place. When you receive higher education, you will meet more and more Atheists. So why would you think what you did? Where do you live?
Reason Personified wrote: Granted, in a university setting, you will encounter many more atheist than I will in the buybull belt.

[QUOTE who="Reason Personified"]<quoted text>
Seeker wrote: Rambling? Atheists don't do kind things? My brother is an Atheist and you should see the kind things he does for people. Where is all of this mistrust coming from?
Reason Personified wrote: We as humans do what is necessary, and that includes kindness. Atheist (but hopefully not as atheist) do many kind things, why would you know about them, unless there are some merit badges being earned?
I know about them because I live in Massachusetts, and it's the opposite of where you live. Talk of God is kept very quiet and kept as a very personal matter and it's usually embarrassing to bring the issue up. And I've seen plenty of Atheists who do kind things that they don't even need to do. I think that they just want to think of themselves as fair or even kind people. I never really asked them why they do nice things. Why would I? I probably know more Atheists than you do, including my brother, so I have plenty of room to comment.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#9408 Jun 16, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
I know about them because I live in Massachusetts, and it's the opposite of where you live. Talk of God is kept very quiet and kept as a very personal matter and it's usually embarrassing to bring the issue up. And I've seen plenty of Atheists who do kind things that they don't even need to do. I think that they just want to think of themselves as fair or even kind people. I never really asked them why they do nice things. Why would I? I probably know more Atheists than you do, including my brother, so I have plenty of room to comment.
People like you, who try to play victim are dishonest. There's a reason why you dont bring up your beliefs around atheists. Its because your book says that all atheists are fools.

How would you expect people to treat you when you admit to believing in this stupidity?

The time for playing victim is up, you need to prove your god or stop bothering atheists with this slimy & dishonest religious conversion tactics.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#9409 Jun 16, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Its actually time to admit you don't understand that atheism is a lack of belief in god & not a denial?
You can't disbelieve or have a lack of belief in something unless you first have an idea to disbelieve in. You like to think of yourself as someone who didn't believe in Radio Waves in the 13th century because the thought never even occurred to you. You would have no idea to even deny or disbelieve in. The thought would have never even occurred to you to disbelieve it. But the idea or concept of God has occurred to you, and you reject it. That's a denial. Not a denial as in "living in denial", but just a simple denial. You deny the belief of the existence of God. You deny the concept of God that you have been told. I don't understand the importance of these word games or semantics sometimes. Does it really make that much of a difference in this case whether we say lack of belief or denial? It's really the same thing in this case.

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 hr River Tam 33,031
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr Endofdays 81,662
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 15 hr Eagle 12 - 2,191
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Wed Eagle 12 - 3,978
News Atheist inmate wins right to practice his faith... (Aug '15) Oct 11 old_moose 233
News People's forum - Get off the fence of religious... (May '10) Oct 10 blacklagoon 3 94
Deconversion (Feb '17) Oct 10 Eagle 12 - 145
More from around the web