Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent.

Comments (Page 9,445)

Showing posts 188,881 - 188,900 of217,056
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Jim

Barnet, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196918
Dec 29, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

8

Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the one angry with the world, read existence, and the way it operates. Thus you are very reactive to it and thrash about trying to change it.
I just live in it and dealt with what it is. Your discontent and noise disturbs the peace.
It is the difference between blending in with the machinery and making changes via a lever here and there and being just an impediment that can crack the gears and mess up the works.
Is that a more civil way of saying STFU, shithead, according to your way of thinking?
PUBLIC WARNING: Creationist Cult Members active on topix Atheism forum:

Dave Nelson
Buck Crick (ex convict)
LCN (paid propogandist)
Bongo
Riverside Redneck
antiatheist

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196919
Dec 29, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

3

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are an idiot, ScumBolus.
Reagan was not in late stages of dimentia by the end of his first term, nor his second term. You made it up.
He MIGHT have been in early stage at the end of his second term. He was still a better president, even with dimentia, than any we have had since.
Marilyn Monroe? There was at least the decency to cover it up.
Clinton? First, you are lying. You have no idea how many hours he worked. Second, if you don't think getting a blowjob in the oval office while talking on the phone to world leaders demeaned the office, get out of such discussions.
And Clinton gave us no surplus. First, it wasn't a surplus if you did not count SSI payroll taxes, which are not part of revenue for general appropriations. Second, Clinton is not responsible. There would have been no surplus if the Republican majority hadn't fought off the spending increases on education, and so forth, that Clinton and democrats fought for, or if they hadn't passed welfare reform 3 TIMES, which Clinton vetoed TWICE. Thirdly, the increased revenue from the dot com bubble and housing bubble created the surplus, not government policy. The Clinton boom was the work of Reagan's supply-side economic policy whose economic expansion continued into the Clinton years.
You are a liar, and your selective political history is bull shit.
Now you know.
Experts weighed in on where Reagan's dementia would have been at. But you seemed to have skipped over that whole Nixon thing. You claimed

"Clinton and his supporting media pretty much disintegrated the "integrity in office" concept.."

To which I responded:

"You are kidding right?...." and gave you examples of things that came well before that and way worse. If you can't remember what you claimed jackass, then stay out of the conversations. Just like you claimed I was making excuses for Rob Ford. Try reading slower and smarter.

And your idea of decency is they covered it up? Gee, you ought to teach ethics class Buck!

And such a wonderful job they did of it too. Not only everybody knew but Marilyn Monroe even told his wife

And Buck Crick of all people wetting his pants over a little hyperbole? No Buck, I don't know if he worked exactly 18 hours a day. But they do log vacation time and Clinton was one of the hardest working presidents we have had

And you must be hanging out with Rob Ford if you think Reagan's trickle-down economics are what caused the surplus

You seem grumpy. And jealous. You are just mad Clinton got a blow-job aren't you? And from a woman no less! I bet after you get your first one you will understand:)

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196920
Dec 29, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

http://www.bcdemocratonline.com/article/20131...

This is the sort of thing that liberal activism leads to. Running over and destroying your base and support. Cities have their concerns. Farmers have their own. Urban areas are machines made of people. Social problems cause them to ignore the supply line that supports them.

There is a difference between getting a white collar job and going to work 9 to 5 in an office and then returning home, and working on hundreds of acres, investing and risking very heavy money on getting crops out of the ground and to the market to feed the people in the cities.

The cities in the West have been buying up water rights to water lawns in the cities. The family farms have been selling them to the cities and the farms abandoned. This also applies to ranches and livestock.

Crops and meat don't appear magically.

There is an awful lot of that coal referred to headed east from those mines. There are about 10 two mile long coal trains that pass by here every day. China is the other direction. I have noticed they aren't piling the coal so high in the cars as they did a year ago.
LCNin

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196921
Dec 29, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Experts weighed in on where Reagan's dementia would have been at. But you seemed to have skipped over that whole Nixon thing. You claimed
"Clinton and his supporting media pretty much disintegrated the "integrity in office" concept.."
To which I responded:
"You are kidding right?...." and gave you examples of things that came well before that and way worse. If you can't remember what you claimed jackass, then stay out of the conversations. Just like you claimed I was making excuses for Rob Ford. Try reading slower and smarter.
And your idea of decency is they covered it up? Gee, you ought to teach ethics class Buck!
And such a wonderful job they did of it too. Not only everybody knew but Marilyn Monroe even told his wife
And Buck Crick of all people wetting his pants over a little hyperbole? No Buck, I don't know if he worked exactly 18 hours a day. But they do log vacation time and Clinton was one of the hardest working presidents we have had
And you must be hanging out with Rob Ford if you think Reagan's trickle-down economics are what caused the surplus
You seem grumpy. And jealous. You are just mad Clinton got a blow-job aren't you? And from a woman no less! I bet after you get your first one you will understand:)
President Clinton did care for his fellow man and tried to advance health insurance.
Have a good day

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196922
Dec 29, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Buck Crick wrote:
In Murray v. Curlett, 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court was given this description of atheism by counsel for the petitioner, Murray. This was the case that removed Bible reading and recitation of the Lord's Prayer in the public schools:

“Your petitioners are atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy. An atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it, and enjoy it. An atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment. He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man. He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter. He believes that we are our brother's keepers and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.”

Does your reasoning conclude atheism has a belief system, or no belief system?
Is it organized?
Those are humanist values, not the values atheism. Atheism has no values. Madeline misspoke when she said, "an atheist believes ..."

Stalinists are atheists, and they don't hold those values.
Buck Crick wrote:
"The Atheist Agenda is an organization founded in 2005 by Carlos Morales and a group of new atheists from the The University of Texas at San Antonio.[1] The group is dedicated to the philosophy of freethought, as well as promoting aggressive activism against theology and theological institutions, encouraging non-believers to take pride in their history and community, and providing to them the same fellowship that those of a religious background share. The Agenda frequently holds meetings open to all who wish to learn, and is known for staging demonstrations (most notably the "Smut for Smut" campaign[2]) in the San Antonio and Austin areas, to make their viewpoints known. A documentary was produced regarding Atheist Agenda and their Smut for Smut campaign in 2011, titled Dissonance. Since its creation, the Atheist Agenda has grown from small gathering of students to a group of hundreds, with members at The University of Texas at Austin and University of Houston in addition to those at UTSA." "American Atheists is a non-profit organization in the United States dedicated to defending the civil liberties of atheists and advocating for the complete separation of church and state.[1] It provides speakers for colleges, universities, clubs and the news media. It also publishes books and the quarterly American Atheist Magazine, currently edited by Pamela Whissel.[1][2][3] The organization was founded by Madalyn Murray O'Hare"
Sorry, but those beliefs are not part of atheism. Atheism is not anti-theism. Activism of any type is an inessential add-on for some types of atheists.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196923
Dec 29, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

3

Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Phil Robertson was wrongfully terminated by his employer for his right to free speech and his religious freedom.
His employer A&E is subject to the laws of the United States in particular Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
SEC. 2000e-2.[Section 703]
(a) Employer practices
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Neither of those things were violated

They didn't fire him for being a Christian.

And while he has a right to freedom of speech, they have no obligation to provide the platform

I am a Christian. But at the same time there are 667 sins listed in the Bible. All of the sins of the flesh are considered equal. All sins but blasphemy can be forgiven. All unforgiven sins have the same punishment which is death. The Bible says do not judge those outside the church that God will do that. It also says do not judge hypocritically. Singling out a sin someone knows they can't commit as worse than their owns when they aren't even supposed to be addressing sexual immorality of those not in the faith is disregarding what the Bible teaches

Check out 1 Corinthians 5

But I don't want to get too far off subject. It really just comes down to a matter of law. And most jobs are at-will jobs. And his constitutional rights were not violated

There are many places I find the restriction of religious speech to be absurd and fail to see how it has been ruled constitutional to prohibit it on what has been essentially a made-up interpretation of separation of church and state which only originally stated that no free speech shall be restricted and congress shall make no laws favoring a particular religion. Somehow we went from no laws and not restricting speech to restricting speech in public schools and government positions.

But what is protected is our right to be part of a race or gender or group without fear of reprisal. What isn't guaranteed is that we can say whatever opinions those groups hold in the course of our jobs and be allowed to keep them. You cannot be fired for being part of the KKK. But you most certainly can be fired if you go on air and start calling people n**gers. Its an extreme example and not meant as comparative but more illustrative. The only thing that matters in most cases when it comes to keeping a job is whether the employer still wants you working there. That's pretty much the law. We have our rights. Employers have theirs

(T) Peace

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196924
Dec 29, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

2

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Don't you think that you are being a little uncharitable here? Catcher was addressing me in a discussion of how we feel about Dave, and how we treat him. He is describing an unenviable existence in descriptive terms. I have never seen Catcher rub Dave's nose in any of this. I'd say - and have recently said - that he shows admirable restraint.
Dave is quick with his condescending language and personal smears for Catcher and me, and in my case, a willingness to fantasize out loud about my suffering. Neither of us has given him just cause for that.
So how to respond, if at all?
Those that have known me the longest know that I have not tolerated this kind of disrespect in the past, and have gone to war with several people posting in this thread at this time over it. I suppose that is because I was not used to it before coming to Topix, and reacted with outrage. The combination of that resulting in wars that I did not enjoy, and getting used to it, has caused me to rethink my approach to this type of situation.
And I confess to be conflicted when I read Dave's vile and loathsome posting. My instinct is to come back at him. I am working to harness that, and think that I have shown a fair amount of restraint.
But Catcher actually has positive feelings for the guy. I would like to be that way some day, and will work to do so if I can by reflecting on the matter and trying to understand my feelings.
But I would be lying to say that I am that man today. What I feel today is the opposite, and it was that difference between Catcher and me that I was commenting on. Catcher was being frank in explaining that he has the same assessment of Dave, and has been treated the same by him, but that he has feelings of pity for the man nevertheless.
So, I think that you have misunderstood and misjudged Catcher's post. He wasn't looking for a way to hypocritically slip in a back-handed insult to Dave. He could do that at any time.He was being honest about his perceptions of Dave and his experience dealing with him.
Catcher and I might have had this conversation privately to spare Dave's feelings, but Dave's feelings aren't the only consideration, and I don't see where he has earned that kind of consideration anyway. These are the kinds of discussions that we all benefit from - hopefully you as well - and why they're worth having publicly. Where else are you going to see these kinds of matters involving people that you are familiar with and have witnessed interacting discussed in this frank and analytical fashion? It's a great opportunity for all of us, and if Dave has to read a few unflattering words about himself, so be it.
Thanks for all this, but you're too kind.

I give RR no quarter, although he is probably no less deserving of better treatment.

Sometimes our personalities dictate our responses to different people.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196925
Dec 29, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

"Some unemployed people said the loss of benefits might drive them to take minimum- wage jobs to get by until they can find work at their skill level and in their field.

Richard Mattos, 59, of Salem, Ore., has been out of work since March, when he was laid off as a case manager at a social services organization. Without the unemployment income, Mattos said he and his wife will have enough money for one month's worth of bills. Almost every day, he visits employment centers run by the state of Oregon or Goodwill Industries International.

"I don't know what we're going to do," he said. "We could end up homeless because of this.""

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_2480...

I am flabbergasted by the entitlement mentality that now exists.

The government wasn't there when Dave packed a family in a little car with everything they could carry with no where to go and $200 to get there with, or a few other bad economic times. And far from just Dave. Such has happened to millions and millions of workers over decades because of layoffs. But let it be white collar or parasitic professions and the government dumps money in their laps. I believe they tend to be liberal Democrats.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196926
Dec 29, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

3

LCNin wrote:
<quoted text>
President Clinton did care for his fellow man and tried to advance health insurance.
Have a good day
The guy still spends most his time doing charitable works and trying to advance human rights

I hated Bush Jr about as much as someone can hate a president. It disgusted me that voters cared more about personality than competence (and a little help from Florida) or Gore would have won and the second term never would have been an issue. He was in so far over his head it was sickening and became pretty much a figure head for the people actually running the government. And yet I will still say the man was a patriot who I believe wanted what was best for this country

How desperate and partisan does someone have to be to demonize someone politically over a blowjob? Yeah the guy was a crappy husband. Then again, that marriage was one of mostly political convenience for both of them. But I don't condone the cheating and I felt bad for his kid. But the guy was a good president who respected the office by putting his heart and soul into the job. If someone wants to disagree with his policies so be it. But to question his commitment or respect for the office because of what he did as a man, not acting as president is more of a reflection of the accuser.

(T) Peace

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196927
Dec 29, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
OK. How does that definition fit in with your claim that there is an atheism belief system. How do you define belief system? Your definition doesn't seem to address a belief system, just a system for accomplishing a purpose.
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
That is neither a belief system, nor an essential aspect of atheism. That is a secular humanist value, and an action plan to defend it. From the Affirmations of Humanism:
"We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and state."
And how would that belief constitute a system were it part of atheism?
We atheists have no belief system as atheists. All of our beliefs apart from the negative belief in gods are part of something else, depending on what philosophy or ideology we embrace - secular humanism in your example, which is my belief system as well.
But other kinds of atheists have radically different belief systems, such as Stalinists and astrologers,which are also not a part of atheism.
Atheism is the absence of a god belief, and says nothing about a belief system except that any belief system that an atheist embraces will not be a theistic belief system.
Would Buck ascribe the "belief system" he quotes to Pol Pot and Stalin?

There goes his "killing for atheism" argument.

BTW, we need to expand the definition of Godwin's Law."

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196928
Dec 29, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Buck Crick wrote:
Clinton?... if you don't think getting a blowjob in the oval office while talking on the phone to world leaders demeaned the office, get out of such discussions.
If you think that that story demeaned the office, you should take it up with the people that made it public.

It didn't demean the office in my estimation. Working on your time off is multi-tasking in a way that would exceed my devotion to any job I can't imagine calling anybody up while getting a hummer.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196929
Dec 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Buck Crick wrote:
Nope. Atheism says what the atheist believes. By definition.
He doesn't say "no thanks" to god beliefs. He looks at a belief, and says, "Thanks, I'll take that one".
Which one? Stalinism? Humanism? Astrology?

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196930
Dec 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Dave Nelson wrote:
"Some unemployed people said the loss of benefits might drive them to take minimum- wage jobs to get by until they can find work at their skill level and in their field.
Richard Mattos, 59, of Salem, Ore., has been out of work since March, when he was laid off as a case manager at a social services organization. Without the unemployment income, Mattos said he and his wife will have enough money for one month's worth of bills. Almost every day, he visits employment centers run by the state of Oregon or Goodwill Industries International.
"I don't know what we're going to do," he said. "We could end up homeless because of this.""
http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_2480...
I am flabbergasted by the entitlement mentality that now exists.
The government wasn't there when Dave packed a family in a little car with everything they could carry with no where to go and $200 to get there with, or a few other bad economic times. And far from just Dave. Such has happened to millions and millions of workers over decades because of layoffs. But let it be white collar or parasitic professions and the government dumps money in their laps. I believe they tend to be liberal Democrats.
You should be grateful that the government is there for you now.

“Which "god"?”

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196931
Dec 29, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

4

christian knife fight!?

My money's on Skomboneurosis, sorry Bucky duck, he drools a bit less than you.

Good thing they can't kill each other here.

“Which "god"?”

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196932
Dec 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>Would Buck ascribe the "belief system" he quotes to Pol Pot and Stalin?

There goes his "killing for atheism" argument.

BTW, we need to expand the definition of Godwin's Law."
I doubt it.

“Which "god"?”

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196935
Dec 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Clinton got a blojob, so what?

Obama is a mass murderer for oil.

Y'all got your priorities twisted.

That's my political post for the month.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196938
Dec 29, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

6

Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>The guy still spends most his time doing charitable works and trying to advance human rights
I hated Bush Jr about as much as someone can hate a president. It disgusted me that voters cared more about personality than competence (and a little help from Florida) or Gore would have won and the second term never would have been an issue. He was in so far over his head it was sickening and became pretty much a figure head for the people actually running the government. And yet I will still say the man was a patriot who I believe wanted what was best for this country
How desperate and partisan does someone have to be to demonize someone politically over a blowjob? Yeah the guy was a crappy husband. Then again, that marriage was one of mostly political convenience for both of them. But I don't condone the cheating and I felt bad for his kid. But the guy was a good president who respected the office by putting his heart and soul into the job. If someone wants to disagree with his policies so be it. But to question his commitment or respect for the office because of what he did as a man, not acting as president is more of a reflection of the accuser.
(T) Peace
The Clintons are meglomaniacs who did a lot of wrongs and used their legal skills to avoid being held accountable. They had no problem destroying anyone who got in their way to power. The blow job was the brakes Gingrich and company put on that runaway train of ego and power. The Clinton admin was full of slime, and they got new life in this admin. Lawyers gone wild with power.

“Which "god"?”

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196940
Dec 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>--The historical record of killing for atheism is 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity's worst year.

--There is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules.

--Atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them.
Says a guy ruled by a pig.

You've ruined your shirt Ivan.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196941
Dec 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Dave Nelson wrote:
"Some unemployed people said the loss of benefits might drive them to take minimum- wage jobs to get by until they can find work at their skill level and in their field.
Richard Mattos, 59, of Salem, Ore., has been out of work since March, when he was laid off as a case manager at a social services organization. Without the unemployment income, Mattos said he and his wife will have enough money for one month's worth of bills. Almost every day, he visits employment centers run by the state of Oregon or Goodwill Industries International.
"I don't know what we're going to do," he said. "We could end up homeless because of this.""
http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_2480...
I am flabbergasted by the entitlement mentality that now exists.
The government wasn't there when Dave packed a family in a little car with everything they could carry with no where to go and $200 to get there with, or a few other bad economic times. And far from just Dave. Such has happened to millions and millions of workers over decades because of layoffs. But let it be white collar or parasitic professions and the government dumps money in their laps. I believe they tend to be liberal Democrats.
I can guarantee you short of an opening at Walmart for a greeter, someone 59 years old won't be able to get a minimum wage job

My buddy who has his pilot's license and college degree couldn't get a job at a gas station or McDonald's as they said he was too old, too qualified and would leave first chance he got, or they simply didn't have any openings as most states at the time had about a 7-1 ration of people out of work compared to available jobs

I can see the entitlement complaint when it comes to certain cases with welfare. and there will always be people who scam the system. But this is someone that has probably been paying taxes for 40 years and his companies paying into unemployment that he never used. We spend more on defense than the next 10 highest spending countries COMBINED, nine of which are our allies and spend 3 times more on defense then all our discretionary spending combined.

I find it hard to believe emergency unemployment insurance can't be funded while we have things like the pentagon losing 100 million in airline tickets simply for not returning them as they were refundable and another 100 million by allowing the employees to expense tickets that were already paid for. This is when they found out over 40,000 people had unlimited government credit cards for expenses that they were using for things ranging anywhere from personal trips to cars to kid's college tuition

Someone that has worked their whole life and paid into the system should be able to count on it for something. Lord knows the people who have been paying into SS will probably never see that money by the time they are ready to retire already. Working 40 years and needing some safety net when a job is lost through no fault of their own is supposed to be the system we have in place. I don't see that as entitlement at all. The government made bank off of millions of people who worked their whole life and never needed unemployment. They can give a little back amid a recession no

JMO

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#196945
Dec 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rosa_Winkel wrote:
People like Robertson must take responsibility for what they say. Not act as if talking bigotry makes HIM the victim.
Agreed.

Christians playing victim is particularly off-putting. If the Christian is victimized, it is by his church.

Duckman uncritically imbibed his church's homophobic stance, and with what I assume by listening to him was little understanding of the possible ramifications of a minor celebrity repeating such ideas, discovered what the cost of expressing them on behalf of his church might be.

Likewise when people become missionaries in hostile regions and lose their lives. They are the victims of those who encouraged them to do so, and gave them the impression that a god or its holy spirit would protect them, or at least reward them. Muslim suicide bombers are victims of their faith in exactly the same way.

It's also unbecoming to read or hear Christians complain about being bullied by the words of a minority, especially one that it has abused just about as much as possible with far more than just words.

And I realize that many of you Christians are offended by comments such as these. But they are commonly held beliefs among unbelievers. Isn't it time to stop being offended and to begin looking at ways to project a more sympathetic image to such people? Unbelievers are in ascension. Don't you want to be thought of in as favorable a light as possible? You are free to react however you please, but what is in your best interest?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 188,881 - 188,900 of217,056
|
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.

603 Users are viewing the Top Stories Forum right now

Search the Top Stories Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Should Black People in the USA Leave America an... (May '13) 5 min Johnny 422
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 5 min Michael 512,201
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 5 min RiversideRedneck 680,337
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 6 min Go Le Gay Levi GO 109,634
Skylanders Swap Force Free Download 7 min Asa 9
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 10 min Mr Wiggley 440,843
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 13 min Aura Mytha 596,572
Girls snapchat names?(dirty) 40 min ryanm654321 258
Game of Thrones Ebook Download Free [PDF] (Feb '13) 15 hr sakib 47
•••
•••
•••