Ooooo...snap! So, another question that you are incapable of answering. Doesn't surprise me. You don't seem to have put a great deal of actual thought into this whole God thing. Just listened to what everyone else has told you, and learned to parrot the thoughts of others.
Let me clarify:
Yeah, that's pretty much it. You have made your bias clear, which makes you incapable of recognising objective analysis. But, that's okay. You insisted, repeatedly, that you didn't need to convince anyone of anything, didn't you?
lol, that was in reference to comment about worshiping your cousin Brent.
If your analysis had been objective I would most certainly have acknowledged it, but you hamstrung yourself by claiming that religious influence was bad so you couldn't very well then turn around and admit all the obvious things that religion has influenced for the better. Which is exactly why you will fight tooth and nail to discredit self evident facts like Western Civilization was built on the foundation of Christianity which has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind. The bottom line is that again you dealt yourself a losing hand, you either had to admit that religion has been a force for good or you had to sacrifice your objectivity. In the end you will end up losing both, but right now I am concentrating on your objectivity. so what exactly was in your good tally of positive influences of religion?
Yes
No, I do not believe that.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Sometimes...I think. I think you are asking if religious adherents should be mocked. The answer is yes...IF they are stupid enough to make their beliefs public. do you know what religious people I don't mock/ The ones who go to church on Sunday, go home, practice their religion in the privacy of their own lives, go to work, and don't bring their superstitions up, and don't inflict others with their stupid fairy tales. I don't make fun of them.
Then by definition you are a militant atheist.
I did acknowledge the things they have influenced positively. There just weren't as many - even in your biased article, when the details of that article were actually examined, as you would know, if you had actually read my response - as you would like to think. Which is why, in answer to your question "Does the good outweigh the bad", unfortunately the answer seems to be , "No,"
No. by definition, I am an atheist. I told you before, there is no such thing as a "militant" atheist. There are just atheists. If it makes you feel any better, I also don't think there are militant Christians; there are just Christians. You all believe the same fairy tales, and you all react pretty much exactly the same way when those fairy tales are challenged.
Right, you did, but you did not list them. Please list them now. Because I am calling bullshit on your list. You don't have one because you do not believe any good influences have come from religion and the only reason you are offering up your paltry there have been some is to save face. So let's hear the list.
**** you. I acknowledged them in the post you refused to read. since you are so arrogant that you felt you could respond to me without even reading my post, it is not my job to accommodate your arrogant ignorance. You wanna know what positive things I gave Christianity go back and read the post you felt no need to read.
Not true. I specifically illustrated the religious people I feel no inclination to mock even a little bit. And mocking arrogant delusionals isn't a bad habit; it's entertainment. You talking about arrogance is rather like a crack head condemning an alcoholic for his weakness, and addiction.
If they believe in God and share their belief with you, you will mock them. That is condemning respect for them.
If you only limited yourself to that tiny excerpt then you clearly have not made an objective assessment. Are you telling me that that was all you used for your assessment?
Only those who can't keep their beliefs to themselves. I know a lot of religious folk - Christian, and otherwise - that I have never mocked, because they have never felt the need to subject me to their delusion. I only mock those who are arrogant enough to actually believe they have anything to say that I have not already heard, read, or studied for myself. (hint, hint)
No. If you had respected me enough to actually read my posts, instead of just waiting to see a post so that you could fire off your ready made response, you wouldn't need me to
LOL! So, you were being "objective" by cutting and pasting part of a Wikipedia article, instead of actually responding to my questions yourself, but I was not being objective by responding to what you actually posted?!?!
You do realize that you are in a religious forum where religion is discussed. You are actively seeking out people to mock. That makes you a liar and a piece of shit to boot.
Bullshit. You have never made an objective assessment of the good that religion brings to mankind in your life. Not once. You are delusional.
Says the guy who believes in the invisible magic skyman. I feel pretty secure in my position.
