Atheism and cowardice

Atheism and cowardice

There are 12665 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

#9953 Jun 23, 2013
Educated What wrote:
<quoted text>
It's the laws you are trying to pass. Taking God out of schools, it should be left up to the people. Point is, you will not defeat religion because religious people will stand up to you.
Coming from the failed creationist troll who believes that jesus rode on the backs of dinosaurs and that fossils aren't real.

Educated what spend the whole of last year accusing atheists of being molestors.

This paid creationist troll is not to be trusted.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#9954 Jun 23, 2013
atheism is evil wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the one suffering with a mental illness. Atheism.
I've studied atheism for a long time, and it always shows an ugly side. Research shows that atheists are the most deluded, depressed, and deranged people.
You're a full of sh*t liar with no proof of god.

When you grow up and become mature, you will realise that you wasted your life following a cult of defeated liars who have no balls.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#9955 Jun 23, 2013
Thinking wrote:
If Bush truly wanted to build a democratic Iraq, he had the ability to prevent Cheney from nickel and diming the post war process.
Who were the bids supposed to go to, the French who actually thwarted the whole process and snuck under the sanctions and oil for food program in the past, rejected the entire idea of removing Saddam, and then after he is gone they suddenly step up for a bid when it comes time for their contractors to make money? That takes a lot of nerve, but then again, that's the French. Why would the US spend money and watch that money go into the pockets of other countries? I don't remember the UN itself offering to pay for reconstruction.
Thinking wrote:
I've seen plenty to suggest that Iran is responsible for exporting terrorism as opposed to Iraq.
That's true, and Iraq was meant to be a warning shot to Iran.
Thinking wrote:
So why did Bush help Iran out?
He didn't intentionally do that, and I explained this in detail in my last post. It just didn't work out the way they thought.
Thinking wrote:
Better to have kept Saddam constrained with North and South no fly zones. If Saddam had been overthrown from within there would still have been huge casualties, as there are in Syria, but the US and the UK would not have taken the blame.
<quoted text>
I think that the conclusion after mass graves and chemical weapons against the Kurds and Shias, was that this was never going to happen. There were years of no fly zones and other measures, and they never worked. Pussy tactics never seemed to work. In fact, the sanctions and oil for foodprogram attempt only ended up starving Iraqis, and I doubt they were Sunni Iraqis that starved, they were Kurd and Shia Iraqis that starved, because Saddam was smart enough to use tough times to consolidate his power and use what little resources that came in to go to Sunnis and thereby starving Kurds and Shias who were his enemy anyway. So liberal, and intellectual, but naive Americans who preferred sanctions as opposed to attack, actually played right into his hands. The sanctions and oil for food program played right into his hands and the suffering of his Iraqi enemies could all be blamed on the US instead of him. So the US ended up doing the dirty work for him, while the French and Russians snuck underneath these sanctions and even gave him money that nobody even knew he had, while his Iraqi Shias and Kurds starved and the US gets blamed for it. Sometimes, I have no idea why liberals are actually considered "intellectuals". If being naive was measured on an intellect test, the "intellectuals" would fail miserably. All book smart and concept smart, but no true understanding of what people will actually do, because they have nothing but book smarts and theoretical smarts.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#9956 Jun 23, 2013
number four wrote:
<quoted text>Iraq seemed to have a educated and cosmopolitan society ...I figured ( and who didn't) remove Saddam and Voila democracy will ensue ..
They never considered Islam and it's effects on people there, and neither did the "theoretical geniuses" advising Bush. It was all numbers and figures to them. That's what pure, theoretical intellectuals do. If you want to get a true answer, ask the Military, because they are the real world people who actually have to carry things like this out, so they know. Colin Powell advised them that first, if you break it, you own it, so you better be prepared to own it until they can get on their own feet. They ignored him and they weren't prepared to own it temporarily until they can get on their own feet at all. Secondly, he said, if you are going to do this, then do it right with overwhelming force and send 300,000 troops in there. You can send 10 troops into a situation and three will die, or you can send 100 troops into a situation and one will die. And since they did it on the cheap, the borders were left open, and the rest is history. Colin Powell was right, and it is probably why he resigned. Dumb, stupid Politicians. He must have been disgusted for them to tell him how to do something like this. Rumsfeld was a complete A$$ with no Military experience at all.

It actually could have been a right and good thing to do. They did it in weeks without doing much but blowing up Saddam's palaces and his military. But after that, that's when people realized that they had no idea of what to do with what they were left with. Stupid.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#9957 Jun 23, 2013
An Atheist wrote:
<quoted text>Atheist is not someone who doesn't believe in the existance of god but the person who wants to know the nature of reality. True measurements and evidence change his thoughts not a holy book.
This is why he believes more in science rather than conventional system.
I don't agree with the first statement...Only because the definition of an atheist is someone who does not believe in a deity. I do agree that they do take evidence and use it as it should be. I was not agreeing with the person that I responded to...I was actually questioning his statement.

“There are other issues.”

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#9958 Jun 23, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>Coming from the failed creationist troll who believes that jesus rode on the backs of dinosaurs and that fossils aren't real.

Educated what spend the whole of last year accusing atheists of being molestors.

This paid creationist troll is not to be trusted.
Ok so you are saying this because..... You are failed atheist that supports Stalin and his tactics.

Since: May 12

Las Vegas, NV

#9959 Jun 23, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
They never considered Islam and it's effects on people there, and neither did the "theoretical geniuses" advising Bush. It was all numbers and figures to them. That's what pure, theoretical intellectuals do. If you want to get a true answer, ask the Military, because they are the real world people who actually have to carry things like this out, so they know. Colin Powell advised them that first, if you break it, you own it, so you better be prepared to own it until they can get on their own feet. They ignored him and they weren't prepared to own it temporarily until they can get on their own feet at all. Secondly, he said, if you are going to do this, then do it right with overwhelming force and send 300,000 troops in there. You can send 10 troops into a situation and three will die, or you can send 100 troops into a situation and one will die. And since they did it on the cheap, the borders were left open, and the rest is history. Colin Powell was right, and it is probably why he resigned. Dumb, stupid Politicians. He must have been disgusted for them to tell him how to do something like this. Rumsfeld was a complete A$$ with no Military experience at all.
It actually could have been a right and good thing to do. They did it in weeks without doing much but blowing up Saddam's palaces and his military. But after that, that's when people realized that they had no idea of what to do with what they were left with. Stupid.
We are not Muslims ; how could've we've known that they would turn on each other ...it boggles the mind ...

America has invaded countries before ..they don't usually blowup in your face ...

Since: May 12

Las Vegas, NV

#9960 Jun 23, 2013
Thinking wrote:
I preferred to partition Iraq. Kurd zone, Marsh arab zone, leave the sunnis and shiites under Saddam to coexist peacefully (!).
Bush believed in instant gratification. He failed.
<quoted text>
hey ..If something is worth doing ...it's worth being done poorly ..

Bush did not fail, nor did Blair ..It is the Iraqis who failed each other ...

Since: May 12

Las Vegas, NV

#9961 Jun 23, 2013
Joe Fortuna wrote:
<quoted text>
Wasn't he supposed to of harding the pharaohs heart so he could show how powerful he is? Why not the criminal hearts?
..look..you've been gone a really long time ...Can't you start, with something easy ..???
Joe fortun

Arcata, CA

#9962 Jun 23, 2013
Educated What wrote:
<quoted text>
It's the laws you are trying to pass. Taking God out of schools, it should be left up to the people. Point is, you will not defeat religion because religious people will stand up to you.
. Not me my fried i could care less if god stayed in schools, as long as it doesn't keep them from their studies.
Joe fortun

Arcata, CA

#9963 Jun 23, 2013
number four wrote:
<quoted text>..look..you've been gone a really long time ...Can't you start, with something easy ..???
. So you don't understand the question, are you don't like the answer. That's ok I know the answer, just wanted to make you think. I find it best when people find the answer themselves, they seem to remember better
An Atheist

Ashburn, VA

#9964 Jun 23, 2013
I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't agree with the first statement...Only because the definition of an atheist is someone who does not believe in a deity. I do agree that they do take evidence and use it as it should be. I was not agreeing with the person that I responded to...I was actually questioning his statement.
You may be right on your spot but I'm not that kind of atheist. I'm born in Hindu family and I've stopped worshipping god since I began to question myself such as Who am I and who created me? What's the actual destination of my life?
Suddenly these questions broke up all my beliefs.
Although Almost every religion says to love and spread peace, you can see current situation of the world. It has created terrorism, racism, castism, untouchablity and a lot of evils. You shouldn't believe in what is written in these holy book but in what the reality saying itself.
When I was worshipping God I had no problem and today when I'm not worshipping God I've no problem yet. I'm living my life happily and believe in only and only hard work.
I believe that in the past anything created the whole universe but I just don't believe in these ordinary books made by normal human beings. At least modern authors give better explaination of this world.
An Atheist

Ashburn, VA

#9965 Jun 23, 2013
There was no religion when earlymen were dancing like bulls..
Thinking

Kingston Upon Thames, UK

#9966 Jun 24, 2013
The French were wrong to undermine UN sanctions, as I believe were Turkey and Russia.

History proves that they were not wrong to oppose regime change.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Who were the bids supposed to go to, the French who actually thwarted the whole process and snuck under the sanctions and oil for food program in the past, rejected the entire idea of removing Saddam, and then after he is gone they suddenly step up for a bid when it comes time for their contractors to make money? That takes a lot of nerve, but then again, that's the French. Why would the US spend money and watch that money go into the pockets of other countries? I don't remember the UN itself offering to pay for reconstruction.
<quoted text>
That's true, and Iraq was meant to be a warning shot to Iran.
<quoted text>
He didn't intentionally do that, and I explained this in detail in my last post. It just didn't work out the way they thought.
<quoted text>
I think that the conclusion after mass graves and chemical weapons against the Kurds and Shias, was that this was never going to happen. There were years of no fly zones and other measures, and they never worked. Pussy tactics never seemed to work. In fact, the sanctions and oil for foodprogram attempt only ended up starving Iraqis, and I doubt they were Sunni Iraqis that starved, they were Kurd and Shia Iraqis that starved, because Saddam was smart enough to use tough times to consolidate his power and use what little resources that came in to go to Sunnis and thereby starving Kurds and Shias who were his enemy anyway. So liberal, and intellectual, but naive Americans who preferred sanctions as opposed to attack, actually played right into his hands. The sanctions and oil for food program played right into his hands and the suffering of his Iraqi enemies could all be blamed on the US instead of him. So the US ended up doing the dirty work for him, while the French and Russians snuck underneath these sanctions and even gave him money that nobody even knew he had, while his Iraqi Shias and Kurds starved and the US gets blamed for it. Sometimes, I have no idea why liberals are actually considered "intellectuals". If being naive was measured on an intellect test, the "intellectuals" would fail miserably. All book smart and concept smart, but no true understanding of what people will actually do, because they have nothing but book smarts and theoretical smarts.
Joe fortun

Arcata, CA

#9967 Jun 24, 2013
An Atheist wrote:
There was no religion when earlymen were dancing like bulls..
. Religion is a funny word it has different meaning to different cultures.
Thinking

Kingston Upon Thames, UK

#9968 Jun 24, 2013
Well they bloody well should have considered the detrimental effect of religion. The fucktards.

The Haliburton "geniuses" couldn't make much money keeping the sanctions status quo. Cue GWB; "god told me to invade Iraq".
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
They never considered Islam and it's effects on people there, and neither did the "theoretical geniuses" advising Bush. It was all numbers and figures to them. That's what pure, theoretical intellectuals do. If you want to get a true answer, ask the Military, because they are the real world people who actually have to carry things like this out, so they know. Colin Powell advised them that first, if you break it, you own it, so you better be prepared to own it until they can get on their own feet. They ignored him and they weren't prepared to own it temporarily until they can get on their own feet at all. Secondly, he said, if you are going to do this, then do it right with overwhelming force and send 300,000 troops in there. You can send 10 troops into a situation and three will die, or you can send 100 troops into a situation and one will die. And since they did it on the cheap, the borders were left open, and the rest is history. Colin Powell was right, and it is probably why he resigned. Dumb, stupid Politicians. He must have been disgusted for them to tell him how to do something like this. Rumsfeld was a complete A$$ with no Military experience at all.
It actually could have been a right and good thing to do. They did it in weeks without doing much but blowing up Saddam's palaces and his military. But after that, that's when people realized that they had no idea of what to do with what they were left with. Stupid.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#9969 Jun 24, 2013
Educated What wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok so you are saying this because..... You are failed atheist that supports Stalin and his tactics.
Pitiful troll whose dishonest cult has failed in this forum because of Educated Whats repeated stupidity.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#9970 Jun 24, 2013
Joe fortun wrote:
<quoted text>. Not me my fried i could care less if god stayed in schools, as long as it doesn't keep them from their studies.
God has never been in schools, because god is not real.

What is in schools is religious propoganda, and that sh*t should be removed like the school toilets are cleaned.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#9971 Jun 24, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Pitiful troll whose dishonest cult has failed in this forum because of Educated Whats repeated stupidity.
Are you ready to grow up and start wearing men size pants?
There is no evidence that the world began with out God as its creator.
http://www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodL...

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#9972 Jun 24, 2013
Shamma wrote:
<quoted text>Are you ready to grow up and start wearing men size pants?
There is no evidence that the world began with out God as its creator.
http://www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodL...
When you're brave enough to prove your pitiful hallucinations, your opinions about reality might matter.

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) 19 min Uncle Sam 13,317
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Chimney1 31,370
News Why I quit atheism 6 hr Aerobatty 1
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 11 hr ChristineM 19,907
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 15 hr ChristineM 255,314
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 15 hr ChristineM 9,738
Majority of Scots now have no religion 18 hr Eagle 12 9
More from around the web