Are all atheists cowards?

@bogomil:

You have been making demands that God behave in certain ways, which means it is you who wishes to define right and wrong. Whether you are aware of the implications of your statements or not, that is the position you've put yourself in. If you can demand God be held to your opinions of right and wrong, then you are setting yourself up as his judge.

So I have not reversed your argument at all, but only held up a mirror. Sometimes people react with hostility when they're shown their own arguments; I can't help that. Your insults don't motivate me to continue either.

@awake_and_aware:

Yes, Jesus died for our sins, because sin is rebellion against God and the reason we needed to be reconciled. In my signature is a link to my books. If you go there and select Reconciled, you can read more detail on how I understand the Bible's teachings on what Christianity is, why Jesus had to die, and what his resurrection means. Anyone who sincerely wants to understand rather than merely flame is welcome to read it; there's no charge and you can even download it.

Whether non-Jewish and non-Christian people made sacrifices really doesn't have anything to do with the Bible, so I don't have any comment on whether such people were stupid. But of course, some people regard mere differences of opinion as stupidity.

As for "Christianity's claim" re. Jesus' sacrifice, it isn't something we made up but what the Bible says. Of course you're inferring that if pagan sacrifices were "stupid" by your standards, then the Bible's claim must be "stupid" as well, but that's a non-sequitur since, as I said, pagan practices have no bearing on the Bible.

Personally, I think most atheists' obsession with Christianity is beyond stupid, to the point of psychosis. Some of them claim, to paraphrase a line from Monsters Inc., "we scare because we care", but I'm not buying that, since people who genuinely want to help others don't mock them and call their beliefs stupid. Just how I see it.

reply to post by SaberTruth

Anyone who sincerely wants to understand rather than merely flame is welcome to read it; there's no charge and you can even download it.

It is was it is; a human sacrifice. Such an event doesn't absolve an entire species of "sin" - You, and several priests are welcome to your beliefs, but you are certainly NOT welcome to an immunity from criticism, or respect for such beliefs.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

It is was it is; a human sacrifice. Such an event doesn't absolve an entire species of "sin" - You, and several priests are welcome to your beliefs, but you are certainly NOT welcome to an immunity from criticism, or respect for such beliefs.

Jesus said he laid down his life voluntarily. Would you say that people who sacrifice themselves to save others are making a human sacrifice? And who said anything about wanting immunity from criticism? Are you upset by what I'm saying? Some atheists would love for me to shut up, is that because they can't take disagreement?

reply to post by SaberTruth

Are you upset by what I'm saying?

No.

Some atheists would love for me to shut up, is that because they can't take disagreement?

Might be.

Jesus said he laid down his life voluntarily.

Apparently someone named Judas had a part in it. Even if someone thinks they are dying for an entire species, does that make it true? Does that make it right?

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Apparently someone named Judas had a part in it.

So did Rome, so did the Pharisees, so did Pilate... what it all means is that Jesus did not fake or arrange or force the wills of others to make this happen. But he allowed it, and as I'm sure someone who knows the Bible inside and out as you must for being so confident of what it teaches, there were several times when people sought to kill him earlier but were unsuccessful. And speaking of Judas, of course you know that Jesus told him when to go get the mob and take them to the garden. You remember when he said that, right?

Even if someone thinks they are dying for an entire species, does that make it true? Does that make it right?

As I explained already, surely you see the difference between a "human sacrifice" and a self-sacrifice.

reply to post by SaberTruth


Wait, which gospel are you reading? Are you reading Matthew, the book that makes Jesus seem like he is an unwilling participant in the whole 'dying on the cross' thing with his last words? Or are you reading Luke and John, which make Jesus sound like he's down with the whole thing?

Or are you taking the four separate accounts and editing them together to make a narrative that makes you feel warm and fuzzy?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Wait, which gospel are you reading? Are you reading Matthew, the book that makes Jesus seem like he is an unwilling participant in the whole 'dying on the cross' thing with his last words? Or are you reading Luke and John, which make Jesus sound like he's down with the whole thing?

Or are you taking the four separate accounts and editing them together to make a narrative that makes you feel warm and fuzzy?

Apparently the concepts of "perspective" and "focus" aren't in your Divine Book of All-Knowing-- a book which would not recognize 4 identical accounts as evidence of collusion, and which has one set of standards for Bible bashing and another for everything else.

Or are you taking the four separate "conflicting" accounts and never asking why they'd all have been carefully preserved by people who were perpetuating a fraud?

But having seen the bulk of your Enlightened Discourses around ATS, the advice of Jesus not to "throw pearls to swine" applies nicely and I will honor him by leaving you to your wallowing in the mud.

reply to post by SaberTruth


I guess I've learned to expect condescending remarks on this site, but do you make a living off of them?

I'm quite well versed in Biblical history. I'm aware of differences in focus, but I'm also aware of concrete conflicts between the accounts. I understand why there's a difference of the depiction of Judas' death in the gospels and in Acts. I understand why the focus shifts between the Jews and the Romans as the bad guys between gospel accounts too.

I bothered to read the stuff, but instead of actually addressing my question you decided to engage in an attack against my knowledge.

You also created a straw man. A fraud? When did I say that? Sometimes people really believe in things and are honestly mistaken. I don't know what the motives were, but I do know that the documents were preserved. This does nothing to confirm or deny the claims of those documents, only their perceived value to individuals and societies which preserved them...
Granted, I'd recommend 'Misquoting Jesus' as a document referring to how certain portions of the Gospels were quite distorted.

reply to post by SaberTruth


You wrote:

["You have been making demands that God behave in certain ways,..."]

My first 'demand' is, that the existence of ANY 'god' is verified, and the next 'demand' is, that YOUR version of such a 'god' is THE 'God'. Then you can start talking about who can 'demand' what.

Quote: ["which means it is you who wishes to define right and wrong."]

I don't operate with 'absolute' values, but in a social context with co-sensus values (and here I can only repeat my regular suggestion: Get some real knowledge about how egalitarian, liberal, secular democracy functions).

Quote: ["Whether you are aware of the implications of your statements or not, that is the position you've put yourself in."]

I'm quite aware of what I'm saying and its consequences. And for one thing, I'm familiar with logic, so I don't have to resort to twisted semantics or demagogy.

Quote: ["If you can demand God be held to your opinions of right and wrong, then you are setting yourself up as his judge."]

Which is a good example of twisted semantics. You refer to an imaginary entity as an absolute, you can start from. This is far from the case. In real logic, you start from axiomatic positions, not from assumptions.

Quote: ["So I have not reversed your argument at all, but only held up a mirror."]

Jusr for the record: The initial argument on this was from you to Madness. So it's not 'my' argument, though I have followed it up.

Quote: ["Sometimes people react with hostility when they're shown their own arguments;"]

Why? Anyone presenting an argument is probably already familiar with it. I take it, that you mean: When arguments are disputed, hostility can arise. In my case I don't automatically react 'hostile' just from opposition. I react 'hostile' on unverified elitist claims, which have the aim of giving some fanatical ideological groups privileges.

Quote: ["I can't help that."]

No-one expects you to take a position of a teaching or guiding 'guru'; not least considering, that your communication basis is your own guessed at fantasies of 'absolutes'.

Quote: [" Your insults don't motivate me to continue either."]

Where did this 'either' come from. On my part I'm perfectly willing and able to continue from a position of a common, reciprocially accepted, communication platform.

What the heck. Guess I will comment as well, and will try to stay on topic.

For reference, yes I am an Athiest, but I really don't think that that makes what I say below any better or worse, or any more valid. I've tried to just address issues and questions. And note that everything I'm saying is just my opinion.

Originally posted by RealAmericanPatriot
I've been noticing a lot pro-atheism posts on ATS lately and they always go after Christians. I haven't seen a single attack on Islam by an atheist.

This is, in my opinion, because many more people understand and have a large amount of exposure to Christianity. This makes it easier for an Athiest to talk about, pro or con. Islam is "strange" and "unknown" to a lot of people.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I have NEVER had a Muslim tell me that I'm going to hell.
I have NEVER had a Muslim try to convert me.
I have NEVER had a Muslim attack me because I'm an atheist.
I have NEVER had a Muslim talk like they know everything and say that theirs is the one true religion.
I have NEVER had a Muslim call me a coward or "secret" anything.

Not sure how to take the "I' in those statements. Do you mean they haven't happened to you personally, or that you haven't heard of them happening at all?

If you meant they don't happen at all, that is obviously a bit short-sighted. Many extremist Muslims have said that they expect non-Muslims to go to hell, that the only salvation is conversion and act like theirs is the "one true religion." Granted, there is debate on what a true Muslim believes and how the extremists fit into the picutre... can't go a day after any extremist action without 1000 Muslims saying "they don't represent true Islam."

If you meant that you have personally never had that happen to you, I will counter that I have never personally or directly had a Christian tell me I am going to hell, attack me for being an Athiest (attempt to convert, but not even verbally "attack") or claim that theirs is the one true religion. I also have never had a Muslim say any of that stuff to me. Different people have different experiences... obvious, of course, but still a key point.

I've never been called a coward or secret anything, but untll this thread, I don't remember hearing of anyone saying that on any level at all, whether to me or in general. If so, I probably just ignored it and went on with my life. Not worth my time.

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
Real American Patriot, please show me, how about ten topics, where Christians attack the beliefs of anyone besides Atheists.

I am not going to address actual threads that exist on this website about this issue, which obviously immediately makes my reply to you meaningless. Instead, I would rather talk about reality: You can't read/watch any conservative (yes, liberals do it, too. I'm not that naive) source and see countless cases of Muslims being verbally attacked.

As it relates to this website, my opinion is that this site has a very large and vocal atheistic readership. Much more than the world. Because of this, there is a lot more confrontational situations that come up because after a while, it gets really old. The sad truth of the matter is that Athiests are so marginalized, the mainstream don't feel we are worth their time.

Personally, I actually am glad about that. I don't have to go through the garbage every day.

Originally posted by RealAmericanPatriot
Wow, you must be unaware of a recent move in the courts to make Shariah law supercede civil law...right here...in the good ol' USA...

If you aren't talking about Oklahoma, don't bother reading the next 2 paragraphs. I'm not sure of any other situation that you might be talking about.

I have to admit that I might not be talking about the case that you are talking about, but if you mean what I think you mean (the Oklahoma case), you seem to have it backwards. In November, Oklahoma voters passed a law (State Question 755) in November that "would prohibit state courts from considering international or Islamic law when deciding cases." In other words, they voted to speficially say that no, Sharia law can't supercede civil law. This was later blocked by a federal judge. (Source For Both) It was struck down because the focus was specifically on Islam. RealAmericanPatriot, please assure me that you aren't reading the law being blocked as being the same as move to make Sharia law supercede civil law...

Now, Oklahoma is attempting a new law that says that no religious law can supercede civil law (Source). And I don't see that passing. That just sounds ripe for abuse.

Hmm... I was going to comment on two more things, but really I'm kinda bored. So let me wrap up my view...

When it comes down to it, I don't care what religion people are, and don't hold it for/against them (and I definitely don't hold someone in better light just because they are an Athiest). I personally just want to be allowed to believe or not believe what I want in peace. But, if someone does directly question me on a topic, or an issue carries on for quite a while, I will comment and make my point of view known.

Though, usually sarcastically, which gets me in trouble. Heh.

Originally posted by bogomil
My first 'demand' is, that the existence of ANY 'god' is verified, and the next 'demand' is, that YOUR version of such a 'god' is THE 'God'. Then you can start talking about who can 'demand' what.

Your first demand is an absurdity, because you already have decided that there is no form of evidence for God's existence that you'd accept. Your second is likewise absurd, because it depends on the same problem of evidence. Now it's my turn: I demand that you prove that the supernatural is impossible. Absurd? Illogical? Exactly.

I don't operate with 'absolute' values, but in a social context with co-sensus values (and here I can only repeat my regular suggestion: Get some real knowledge about how egalitarian, liberal, secular democracy functions).

You most certainly do operate with absolutes, e.g. "there is no god". Facts are not determined by consensus (which I can only guess is what you meant by "co-sensus"). And I've got a "suggestion" for you as well: got it already, more than you know, and it is you who needs to stop playing the teacher.

I'm quite aware of what I'm saying and its consequences. And for one thing, I'm familiar with logic, so I don't have to resort to twisted semantics or demagogy.

I see evidence to the contrary in this thread.
Seen no evidence that you are.
But you do it anyway.

Which is a good example of twisted semantics. You refer to an imaginary entity as an absolute, you can start from. This is far from the case. In real logic, you start from axiomatic positions, not from assumptions.

"Twisted semantics" means a change of a word or phrase's meaning, not poor logic.

You also engage in tautology by using the desired conclusion (God is imaginary) as a premise to prove that God is imaginary. At the very least, I dispute the factualness of that premise. And do you understand what an axiom is? Outside of mathematics, an axiom is "a self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate." So in logic there is no practical difference between an axiom and an assumption. You use your def. of axiom in your absolute belief that "there is no God".

Jusr for the record: The initial argument on this was from you to Madness. So it's not 'my' argument, though I have followed it up.

Then why did you complain that I twisted yours?

Why? Anyone presenting an argument is probably already familiar with it.

Not a "given" at all; there are lots of people who simply parrot arguments without really understanding them and without having been confronted with its implications. Happens all the time. So no, I do not mean that people get hostile in the course of an argument.

No-one expects you to take a position of a teaching or guiding 'guru'; not least considering, that your communication basis is your own guessed at fantasies of 'absolutes'.

Back atcha. If you don't want to take it, don't dish it out.

Where did this 'either' come from. On my part I'm perfectly willing and able to continue from a position of a common, reciprocially accepted, communication platform.

It means "also" or "in addition" in that context, not a contrast or comparison. But if we are to communicate rationally, you need to abide by your own rules and recognize your own fallacies and absolutes.

reply to post by SaberTruth


You wrote:

["Your first demand (the verification of ANY 'god; my insert) is an absurdity, because you already have decided that there is no form of evidence for God's existence that you'd accept.)

How can you possibly know that, except from postulates on what my criteria are? It would be less dishonest on your part, if you let me speak for myself.

Quote: [Your second is likewise absurd, because it depends on the same problem of evidence."

Ofcourse it's a question of 'evidence', as above, and if you'd relate in a meaningful way to my last post, you may recall, that I asked for a common communication platform, which even could imply not only debating 'answers', but also how to arrive to answers. I.e. methodology.

Quote: ["Now it's my turn: I demand that you prove that the supernatural is impossible. Absurd? Illogical? Exactly."]

Back to square one. You BELIEVE, you know my position, which you obviously have no idea about. In other words, you fabulate about me, and from your fabulations expect me to 'prove' something, which may be of interest for your semantic gymnastics, but is meaningless to ask of me.

Quote: ["You most certainly do operate with absolutes, e.g. "there is no god"."]

Do you always speak on behalf of all the persons involved in disputes you're part of? Maybe you would like to continue with presenting your comments, and then write my comments also, so they fit with your postulates.

Quote: [" Facts are not determined by consensus (which I can only guess is what you meant by "co-sensus")."]

No, 'facts' are not determind by cosensus. 'Facts' are in the human sphere ultimately an epistemological question, but as few people are willing or able to get around to epistemology, there are (sometimes) functional compromises 'on the way' initially originating from a common communication platform.

Quote: ["And I've got a "suggestion" for you as well: got it already, more than you know, and it is you who needs to stop playing the teacher."]

I take "what you already got" is knowledge about egalitarian, liberal, secular democracy. If you agree with me on its value, fine. If you on the other hand consider ethics of the secular part of democracy on the following terms.......

Quote from a former post of yours: ["In contrast, if there is no God then there is nothing but popular opinion and the majority rules... aka "might makes right"."]

....then some clarification on your part is needed, and my 'teaching' efforts consist of pointing out the need of such clarification. You're presenting a good deal of postulates, based on your own assumptions, and the step by step isn't apparent.

So when your own position is clear and well-defined, we can continue to the merits of secular versus divine ethics.

Quote concerning my capacity for logic: ["I see evidence to the contrary in this thread. Seen no evidence that you are. But you do it anyway."]

It's possible, that you and I refer to different versions of 'logic'. I use the standard one, which is part of modern education, being a part of philosophy and epistemology, and which relates to and is used by science.

It's not to pull rank, but if I'm using logic the wrong way, I must have misunderstood some 9 years of higher education, including its practical use. Maybe this subject also would necessitate a more basic common communication on what logic IS.

E.g. you maybe have a 'special' kind of logic, not taught in school, which you would like to present.

Quote: [""Twisted semantics" means a change of a word or phrase's meaning, not poor logic."]

Well, you just did it again.

Quote: ["You also engage in tautology by using the desired conclusion (God is imaginary) as a premise to prove that God is imaginary."]

Where did that come from? A postulate of any kind (not specifically being presented as subjective faith), needs some evidence, justification, validation, explanation..... Otherwise ANY wild speculation, fabrication, fabulation or fantasy is 'true'.

If you want to go from twisted semantics into scholastics, feel free. Eventually you'll have to relate to some rational basis, where words mean something, though I believe it'll take some time to get you to that point.

Quote: ["Outside of mathematics, an axiom is "a self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate."

The mathematical criteria for axioms are actually similar/identical with those used elsewhere in rational reasoning relating to 'objectivity'.

I may ofcourse be accused of omitting the objectivity-request in this connection, but I had hoped to avoid the stupidity of mentioning the flying spaghetti monster's validity, by taking general postulates as related to objectivity for granted.

Not the subjective version, which can agree on ANYTHING as axiomatic, just because some people share opinions. My bad.

Quote: ["So in logic there is no practical difference between an axiom and an assumption. You use your def. of axiom in your absolute belief that "there is no God".]

"So in logic" .....etc ?????

Again I must ask you for a presentation of the 'logic' you're using. In my version of standard logic, there are some rather strict criteria making an axiom into an axiom. 'Self-evidence' comes rather late into the process.

Originally posted by bogomil
How can you possibly know that, except from postulates on what my criteria are? It would be less dishonest on your part, if you let me speak for myself.

Dishonesty requires intent to deceive. If you don't like being falsely accused, don't do it to others; same response to your following charges of putting words in your mouth.

Ofcourse it's a question of 'evidence', as above, and if you'd relate in a meaningful way to my last post, you may recall, that I asked for a common communication platform, which even could imply not only debating 'answers', but also how to arrive to answers. I.e. methodology.

I'm saying that you demand evidence but don't define the kind of evidence that you'd accept. I'm doing my best to precisely address each of your points, but if you're going to keep dismissing it all instead of responding back and forth, we're wasting our time.

No, 'facts' are not determind by cosensus.

Please learn to spell "consensus"; I could believe it was a typo the first time but not the second.

And if you agree that facts are not determined by consensus, then I'm sure you won't appeal to popularity for any argument. I'll keep an eye out.

...my 'teaching' efforts consist of pointing out the need of such clarification. You're presenting a good deal of postulates, based on your own assumptions, and the step by step isn't apparent.

Do you define 'clarification' as telling other people they're wrong and you're here to set them straight? You've been every bit as ambiguous and imprecise as you allege that I have been; it's a two-way street. All I'm trying to do is point out that your many charges against me are things you do as well.

It's possible, that you and I refer to different versions of 'logic'. I use the standard one, which is part of modern education, being a part of philosophy and epistemology, and which relates to and is used by science.

Here again you declare yourself the teacher, and tack on some ad hominem, as well as wrongly presuming that I never received modern education or took secular courses in philosophy or epistemology or science. I find your arrogance and hypocrisy stifling, so I'll just leave you be. This is going nowhere.

reply to post by SaberTruth

Dishonesty requires intent to deceive.

Indeed, there's a difference between misinformation and disinformation.

reply to post by SaberTruth


You wrote:

["I'm saying that you demand evidence but don't define the kind of evidence that you'd accept."]

Until now, you've concentrated on ascribing a position to me, which I don't hold. But since you actually have arrived at asking me:

a/ For a declared individual (or consenting-adult) subjective faith, I require no evidence, unless said faith starts missioning (if the word missioning is of importance to you, I can define it more precisely and closer to thread-topic than our dispute sofar has been).

b/ For claims concerning a creator-'god', I would request evidence from the observable/concievable/science/logic part of existence usually known as cosmos. At least SOME real science/logic correlation to theistic claims, and definitely NO theist-claims contradicting established, accepted science/logic (as you would expect a creator-'god' to know his own handiwork).

With established and accepted science/logic I mean well-proven theories, not hypotheses or speculations, and certainly not the peculiar variety of hijacked science/logic some christians use.

c/ Maybe too broadly lumping a (possibly some) non-creator 'god'(s), non-interfering 'god'(s) or non-participating 'god'(s) in one category, all of whom exist at a possible trans-cosmic existence level, I would request a methodology which would at least be similar or parallel to speculations based on objectivity criteria (though not necessarily a rigid hard-science basis with strict deductive logic and physical empiricism).

The far too common knowledge-gap-filling with 'ineffability' is un-acceptable for me, and will reduce any claims to the area of subjective faith.

In this category I would also expect some relevance to the fact, that religionists are as much at odds with each other, as they are with science/logic. Any evidence/methodology presented must include some comments on this contradictory diversity in religious 'conclusions', 'concluded' by similar methods and the same alleged trans-cosmic existence-level to start from

Quote: ["....but if you're going to keep dismissing it all instead of responding back and forth,....]

Here you go again. Instead of waiting for my 'evidence criteria' from which you can operate (if you choose so), you postulate a "keep going' of something I've never done. Most of my communication with you consists of your categorizing my position. Now you have the possibility of relating to what I really stand for.

Quote: ["Please learn to spell "consensus"; I could believe it was a typo the first time but not the second."]

I've been in contact with christians, who on occasion corrected my spelling/vocabulary from positive motives. In your case: Unless I'm unintelligible; ... don't bother.

Quote: [" And if you agree that facts are not determined by consensus, then I'm sure you won't appeal to popularity for any argument."]

Ofcourse I won't consider 'fact' proven by popularity. But there are other social contexts of importance than 'fact-proving'.

Quote: ["I'll keep an eye out."]

I'm quite sure you will. Hopefully this enthusiasm for searching options of semantic traps won't prevent some constructive dialogue also.

Quote: [" Do you define 'clarification' as telling other people they're wrong and you're here to set them straight?"]

Nope. Do you?

Quote: [" You've been every bit as ambiguous and imprecise as you allege that I have been;"]

By insisting on your wrong categorization of me? Or by insisting on a common communication platform?

Quote: ["All I'm trying to do is point out that your many charges against me are things you do as well."]

My '"many charges" against you are mainly, that you ascribe a position and arguments to me, which I don't have.

Quote: ["Here again you declare yourself the teacher, and tack on some ad hominem, as well as wrongly presuming that I never received modern education or took secular courses in philosophy or epistemology or science."]

Instead of sullenly feeling 'persecuted' by me, you've had the option all the time of finding the offered common communication platform, from where we could agree on defintions, methodology, semantics etc. and from there go on.

Maybe it would be relevant to point out, that your own emergence on this thread consists of a post with some rather black/white generalizations of propagandistic nature.

Quote: ["I find your arrogance and hypocrisy stifling, so I'll just leave you be. This is going nowhere."]

My special branch of opposition is admittedly rather irritating (or worse) for SOME. You make your own choices in regard to that.

reply to post by RealAmericanPatriot



christians are the cowards. at least the extream Islamics will die for what they think to be true. though i think that is equally as stupid. to call athestis "secret muslims" is beyond ignorant. i belive in NO god and NO master. i am my own man and master.

reply to post by SaberTruth


You are unaware of what an ad hominem is, aren't you? It's okay, a lot of people are unfamiliar. An ad hominem is when you base the validity of a claim on the character of the person making it.

Examples of an ad hominem would be:

"You can't trust him, he's a drunk"
"Are you going to believe a promiscuous woman?"

Calling someone a name is not an ad hominem as it does not in any way address the validity of the statement. Implying that someone else is not actually using logic is, again, not an ad hominem as says nothing about you.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


While I often am rude, head-on, querulous, impolite and even on occasion somewhat hostile and thus far from your usual diplomacy and general politeness, I share one of your observations on the debate level presented by some of the missionary types.

Why the heck is there so much concentration on the wrapping-paper, leading to "bigger than you, holier than you" labelling, where the content of the package, the message itself, seems to be avoided like a plague.

In spite of my shortcomings in politeness and tolerance, I usually try to offer some 'lenient conditions' for a common compromise to start from.

What is my opponent talking about, what am I talking about, HOW do we talk about it; I'm even willing to regress the whole epistemological process as far as wanted and possible. But as soon as the outer propagandistic level is approached and challenged, the result is practically always a disappearance-act with sullen accusations of 'persecution' as the final goodbye.

How you've been able to take years of this without loosing your balance sometimes is an enigma to me, but I do respect it highly.

reply to post by RealAmericanPatriot


I'm not an atheist. Whatever atheists say about the Bible they can apply to any other religious text. I've often read threads where Christians "go after" atheists, so if there are threads where atheists "go after" Christians it's likely not uncalled for. Atheists are not cowards nor are they "secret muslims." The atheists I know are good people. They work, pay taxes, and would be there for you in your time of need in a heartbeat. Actually, I hate referring to them as atheists and would much rather refer to them as I should which is by their individual names. The part about "secret muslims" is too ridiculous to comment on.

reply to post by RealAmericanPatriot


It seems that you cannot question Islam here. I had a post about Islam, which in my opinion is one of the great obstacles the free world has to overcome, and it was deftly removed. It is backwards when there are so many "pro" religion posts but as soon as you question a religion moderators try to bully the post out of existence.