Atheism and cowardice

Atheism and cowardice

There are 12667 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.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#12543 Nov 13, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Then don't you think that it's inappropriate for a nation of over 300,000,000 people, a huge swath of which don't accept god claims, to write that it trusts in such a creature on its currency? My guess is that no gods exist. Where's the coin for that? Or maybe I'm not considered fully American. That's the message being sent. How much loyalty should an unbeliever show to a nation that defines itself by god beliefs?

Christians don't really care about non-Christians that feel excluded by such language, do they? The usual attitude is that we should stop complaining and just suck it up. But is that consistent with the Golden Rule? Does that rule matter at all, or is it just so many words?
Rusty Tin Can wrote:
why don't you send all your cash to me if you are so disturbed by it? every atheists I know kiss the bills, you are very strange.
Good answer.

I'll accept it as a "No, we don't" response to my question, "Christians don't really care about non-Christians that feel excluded by such language, do they?"

I hope you'll understand why I don't have much respect for Christian ethics, and why I flinch when I hear Christians reciting the Golden Rule.

How do you recommend that I answer Christians when they appeal to my sense of fairness in consideration of their wants and needs?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#12544 Nov 13, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
Yes... the majority of self-professed christians are anything but. They neither follow the words in their bible, nor the words they try to push onto others.
Yes, there is a huge discrepancy between what they preach and how they live. I just got another taste of that. I wonder if they know or care?
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
If you were to take a random sample of any given women's clinics? The majority of those seeking abortions **will** be christians. And a week later? Those self-same people will be standing in a protest line-- against the abortion they just got. Just as these selfish creeps are against any and all programs which might help those who need help-- against what their own bible commands them to do. The last straw, for me? Was these people claiming they support veterans, but they cut vet benefits, they cut vet assistance programs, they even cut the pay to active service vets. Disgusting hypocrites.
It is a rather unbecoming way to be, but they come by it honestly. I am told that Christianity teaches moral behavior, but as we all know, morals are taught by example, which may be reinforced by words that match that behavior. When the example and words are in conflict, the example is taught, not the words, and hypocrisy is added to the lesson.

After a lifetime of sermons telling you to do unto others as you would have them do unto to you, or to love one another, followed by examples of the opposite, you learn to be the same way.
LCNLin

United States

#12545 Nov 13, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
You really are **that** clueless... aren't you?
Sad.
Don't be modest about being clueless.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#12546 Nov 13, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, there is a huge discrepancy between what they preach and how they live. I just got another taste of that. I wonder if they know or care?
<quoted text>
It is a rather unbecoming way to be, but they come by it honestly. I am told that Christianity teaches moral behavior, but as we all know, morals are taught by example, which may be reinforced by words that match that behavior. When the example and words are in conflict, the example is taught, not the words, and hypocrisy is added to the lesson.
After a lifetime of sermons telling you to do unto others as you would have them do unto to you, or to love one another, followed by examples of the opposite, you learn to be the same way.
Yes, indeed-- the kids are far more savy than their parents think.

They see the bitter words their parents exchange in private, and then see the falsely polite, laced with fake cheer behaviors in public.

They see. They remember.

And they grow up rejecting christianity in the end.

Which is good for rationalism.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#12547 Nov 13, 2013
LCNLin wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't be modest about being clueless.
Says the idiot who wants you to believe that jesus rode on the backs of dinosaurs

Since: Apr 12

Concord, CA

#12548 Nov 13, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Yes, there is a huge discrepancy between what they preach and how they live. I just got another taste of that. I wonder if they know or care?
no, we love to dissect whining bullies

Since: Apr 12

Concord, CA

#12549 Nov 13, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Good answer.
I'll accept it as a "No, we don't" response to my question, "Christians don't really care about non-Christians that feel excluded by such language, do they?"
I hope you'll understand why I don't have much respect for Christian ethics, and why I flinch when I hear Christians reciting the Golden Rule.
How do you recommend that I answer Christians when they appeal to my sense of fairness in consideration of their wants and needs?
aww... now the burden is sudden on me to ease your pain of seeing In God We Trust motto on US bills?(can you tell me where it actually hurts... could it be because you never get enough of those?)

Why don't you take on these people?

http://www.treasury.gov/about/education/Pages...

I personally don't care if the phrase is in there (and I don't believe anyone really does unless they are "trouble-makers") In stead of whining and accusing the wrong people, why don't you go tell Obama to "change" all the bills and coins with the motto printed? He loves the word "change", maybe that will get you somewhere... just make sure it won't become "In Government We Trust". Definitely not "In Obama We Trust". And good luck, tell me how many atheists in America would vote for such a change.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#12550 Nov 13, 2013
Rusty Tin Can wrote:
<quoted text>
no, we love to dissect whining bullies
So you are into self-mutilation, now?

Wow... I knew you are deranged, but I had no idea...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#12551 Nov 13, 2013
Proof of evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#12552 Nov 13, 2013

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#12553 Nov 13, 2013

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#12554 Nov 13, 2013

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#12556 Nov 13, 2013

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#12557 Nov 13, 2013

Since: Apr 12

Concord, CA

#12559 Nov 13, 2013
Bob, would you Evolution be that of Darwin's or Jay Gould's? Or the way that Francis Collins believe?

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#12560 Nov 13, 2013
Rusty Tin Can wrote:
Bob, would you Evolution be that of Darwin's or Jay Gould's? Or the way that Francis Collins believe?
Your question scares me, but not in the way you might expect.

The current theory of biological evolution takes something from a number of earlier biological researchers. As always in science, we keep the things that can be independently verified (only for as long as these things continue to hold up to such verifications). And we attempt to build on these testable hypotheses to improve our understanding.

Your question denotes a general lack of even a basic understanding of science, scientific methods, scientific theories, etc.

Were you by chance home schooled???

Since: Apr 12

Concord, CA

#12561 Nov 13, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
Your question scares me, but not in the way you might expect.
The current theory of biological evolution takes something from a number of earlier biological researchers. As always in science, we keep the things that can be independently verified (only for as long as these things continue to hold up to such verifications). And we attempt to build on these testable hypotheses to improve our understanding.
Your question denotes a general lack of even a basic understanding of science, scientific methods, scientific theories, etc.
Were you by chance home schooled???
All 3 thoughts are currently held, Bob's sock. But don't duck the question, Bob, and since you realize that science builds on earlier developments, you must know at how to answer the question comparing Darwin's gradualism and Gould's punctuated equilibrium - they are in their nature "irreconcilable" (unless you don't even know the difference). I'll leave Francis Collin's view out, because you couldn't bare to hear what he said...(but he actually asserted that Darwin was "right" in his lectures - only he believes God is behind all this)
LCNLin

United States

#12562 Nov 13, 2013
Rusty Tin Can wrote:
Bob, would you Evolution be that of Darwin's or Jay Gould's? Or the way that Francis Collins believe?
Social Darwinism is a favorite of the rich.
"s^eptic" does mention scatology a great deal, if you read the OCD posts. Maybe septic is closer?

Since: Apr 12

Concord, CA

#12563 Nov 13, 2013
LCNLin wrote:
Social Darwinism is a favorite of the rich.
"s^eptic" does mention scatology a great deal, if you read the OCD posts. Maybe septic is closer?
I don't know, but notice that they all hide their ISP for some reason, and they pop up at the right moment to answer for the ones hiding behind. They all spew the same hatred that I don't see atheists in Islam Forum (where I enter from) do. You just don't naturally see so many of those marvelous popcorns popping up in the same thread.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#12564 Nov 13, 2013
Rusty Tin Can wrote:
<quoted text>
All 3 thoughts are currently held, Bob's sock.
I have always and ever only posted under this one.

But.

It is quite obvious, by your "reply"-- that you hold and post many-many different ID's.

This post of yours? A dead giveaway.

Such a hypocrite you are.

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 requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 42 min Eagle 12 243,452
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 1 hr USaWarringIdiotSo... 9,438
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 11 hr Brian_G 19,796
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 16 hr thetruth 6,221
News Atheism must be about more than just not believ... Sat Amused 2
Should atheists have the burden of proof? Sat thetruth 38
News Founders created secular nation (Jul '10) Sat knight of Jesus 521
More from around the web