Religion and Ethics

[Grumblenuts]

Seriously? You cannot read what I just said and quoted?
Okay, fine. I'll break down my "specific problems" for you then:
The following includes everything you quoted flacaltenn saying to which you simply replied "I agree. That was what I pretty much said earlier in the thread. It's a bunch of nonsense."

Not here to pick any fight -- but the root of the problem in the Religion forum is that TOLERANCE is apparently NOT in the atheist manuscript.

Clearly intent upon picking a fight, starting out blanket attacking all atheists. Were you previously aware that we have "a manuscript"? You agree with that raving lunacy? Pretty much said the same earlier, did ya?

And this pressing need to POUND on the principles of people of faith is not a good look..

Atheists taking issue with religious "principles" looks bad now, does it? What looks good then, purple rainbows and pixie dust? He sure was painting with loud, broad fart strokes there. All you and Al Gore can apparently say to that is {apply thick southern drawl} Oh,"I agree." "That was what I pretty much said earlier in the thread. It's a bunch of nonsense."

MOST of the offenders are no-nothing wannabee comics and just troll the threads with posts about "worshipping the Spaghetti Monster",

Know-nothing?
Wannabe?
So this is where he's personally attacking me, though I'm not saying you should have known that. He and I did. That's certain and what a great example to choose after I had already copped to ignorantly misusing the phrase within the thread he was referring to. Oh, that flacal.. he's just being such a smart, kind, loving, tolerant, well behaved, swell guy here.. what a moral machine!
Last, but least:

but some of them are there because I FEAR they hate competition for ideologies...

Seems pretty lame to me, fearing while smearing some nonspecific "other" out loud and in ALL CAPS. A whine left begging for a quoted example. Oh well, "I agree. That was what I pretty much said earlier in the thread. It's a bunch of nonsense."

Again, I expect nothing from either of you. I've raised successful children. I took care of my demented mother for years until she mercifully passed in our dining room. Buried my father and older brother. I have quickly worsening disabilities from decades of providing for my family the hard way. I've travelled, studied, and posted to BBs worldwide since before there even was an internet. No one here could possibly intimidate or school me with such pathetic, childish bullshit. Atheists like Hollie are truly interesting, humorous scholars and a genuine treasure anywhere. She should never "FEAR" pissing off some mod for posting her thoughts and arguments on religious topics just because she's an atheist. Say she was Jewish or Hindu.. turned atheist. What tf difference does it make? Jesus, Mary, and Joseph! Talk about intolerance!

 

[Disir]

Seriously? You cannot read what I just said and quoted?
Okay, fine. I'll break down my "specific problems" for you then:
The following includes everything you quoted flacaltenn saying to which you simply replied "I agree. That was what I pretty much said earlier in the thread. It's a bunch of nonsense."

Not here to pick any fight -- but the root of the problem in the Religion forum is that TOLERANCE is apparently NOT in the atheist manuscript.

Clearly intent upon picking a fight, starting out blanket attacking all atheists. Were you previously aware that we have "a manuscript"? You agree with that raving lunacy? Pretty much said the same earlier, did ya?

And this pressing need to POUND on the principles of people of faith is not a good look..

Atheists taking issue with religious "principles" looks bad now, does it? What looks good then, purple rainbows and pixie dust? He sure was painting with loud, broad fart strokes there. All you and Al Gore can apparently say to that is {apply thick southern drawl} Oh,"I agree." "That was what I pretty much said earlier in the thread. It's a bunch of nonsense."

MOST of the offenders are no-nothing wannabee comics and just troll the threads with posts about "worshipping the Spaghetti Monster",

Know-nothing?
Wannabe?
So this is where he's personally attacking me, though I'm not saying you should have known that. He and I did. That's certain and what a great example to choose after I had already copped to ignorantly misusing the phrase within the thread he was referring to. Oh, that flacal.. he's just being such a smart, kind, loving, tolerant, well behaved, swell guy here.. what a moral machine!
Last, but least:

but some of them are there because I FEAR they hate competition for ideologies...

Seems pretty lame to me, fearing while smearing some nonspecific "other" out loud and in ALL CAPS. A whine left begging for a quoted example. Oh well, "I agree. That was what I pretty much said earlier in the thread. It's a bunch of nonsense."

Again, I expect nothing from either of you. I've raised successful children. I took care of my demented mother for years until she mercifully passed in our dining room. Buried my father and older brother. I have quickly worsening disabilities from decades of providing for my family the hard way. I've travelled, studied, and posted to BBs worldwide since before there even was an internet. No one here could possibly intimidate or school me with such pathetic, childish bullshit. Atheists like Hollie are truly interesting, humorous scholars and a genuine treasure anywhere. She should never "FEAR" pissing off some mod for posting her thoughts and arguments on religious topics just because she's an atheist. Say she was Jewish or Hindu.. turned atheist. What tf difference does it make? Jesus, Mary, and Joseph! Talk about intolerance!

I'm not doing this. You are not a victim. I don't really give a shit what you think of me. I've been not liked by better.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Good. I asked for nothing and answered your question. You're welcome.

 

[emilynghiem]

For example, we don't need religion to tell us what constitutes right action. We do it because it needs to be done or we don't.

I think this is one of the biggest misunderstandings among atheists. It's not that we need "religion" to tell us what constitutes right action. It's that atheism cannot account for morality at all, there is no objective moral standard with atheism, it does not and cannot exist in an atheistic worldview. That is one of the fatal flaws of atheism.

It's not "religion" that constitutes right or wrong. True morality is rooted in God, in His nature. As I'm sure you know, God and religion are not the same thing.

Yes and No.
There can be equal respect for TRUTH for what we mutually AGREE on as TRUE, regardless where we consider the source this truth is coming from or not at all.

What I find is different between believers and nonbelievers is the ability to FORGIVE.

Whatever we cannot forgive, while somebody else does, creates a BIAS.

If we cannot forgive BIASES, that is where faith falls short.

As long as Atheists can FORGIVE to the same degree as Christians, then we can still agree on truth by forgiving our differences in explanations or motivations.

What I find is people carry their biases.
We won't give these up unless we absolutely have to in order to get what we want.

If we don't want a solution enough to let go of biases, we will compromise and stick to our way, and let "someone else" solve that problem if we just want to complain and not do the actual work to fix it.

In the end, the faithful who believe and forgive all things will be able to work together to resolve conflicts and establish common truth and agreement on solutions, despite our differences. While the people who cannot forgive those differences stand back and let others do all the hard work to negotiate agreed plans.

After we establish agreed truth, then we can unite all groups respectively around that. Not everyone has to forgive everyone else, but decide which battles we want to fight and win, and which to delegate to others to fight for us.

The key factor that makes the difference in ability to reconcile and agree on truth is willingness to forgive. Everyone has a limit, we each bring our own biases to the table.

The advantage Christian believers have is knowledge and experience with empowering unity through prayer for higher forgiveness than what we are willing to give up as individuals with our personal biases and preferences.

But since Christians are just as unwilling as Atheists to forgive differences, that's why we lose this advantage and all suffer equally. I have seen Atheists succeed where they were more forgiving than Christians and invoked this authority and advantage in the spirit of Justice and Peace, which is the secular equivalent of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Anyone even Atheists can invoke authority of Christ by agreeing to accept that level of grace and forgiveness from God, regardless what we call this love of truth and humanity or where we say it comes from as a universal force in life.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

We agree that we don't need religion to tell us how to define what is good and bad or evil

The morality you currently have is the result of the culture you grew up in. Thankfully that was a Christian culture.

The slippery slope proves there is no inherent morality

 

[Sunsettommy]

We agree that we don't need religion to tell us how to define what is good and bad or evil

The morality you currently have is the result of the culture you grew up in. Thankfully that was a Christian culture.

The slippery slope proves there is no inherent morality

Yet Catholic France and Spain for several hundred years tried to conquer Europe and failed because mostly Protestant and Christians prevailed, all are Christians.

Yet WW1 and WW2 began in Christian nations, then many other Christian nations joined to kill over 50 MILLION people, that ends with two Nuclear bombs (created mostly by Christians) and ordered to drop on a Shinto nation by a Christian.

Other than that it has a prefect moral track record, meanwhile how many big wars have Atheists started......?

Snicker.....

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

We agree that we don't need religion to tell us how to define what is good and bad or evil

The morality you currently have is the result of the culture you grew up in. Thankfully that was a Christian culture.

The slippery slope proves there is no inherent morality

Yet Catholic France and Spain for several hundred years tried to conquer Europe and failed because mostly Protestant and Christians prevailed, all are Christians.

Yet WW1 and WW2 began in Christian nations, then many other Christian nations joined to kill over 50 MILLION people, that ends with two Nuclear bombs (created mostly by Christians) and ordered to drop on a Shinto nation by a Christian.

Other than that it has a prefect moral track record, meanwhile how many big wars have Atheists started......?

Snicker.....

That is not a legitimate reply to my post. It related to NO POINT I MADE, yet you quoted me for the opportunity to do a dump
SNICKER

 

[DudleySmith]

Let's Examine the Claims of Atheists

Chem Engineer


Mar 22, 2021

• Add bookmark
• #1

Let's Examine Claims of Atheists

The Fallacy of Science vs. Religion

The atheists' frequent claim that science and religion are mutually exclusive is demonstrably false. If atheists were as "rational" and "intelligent" as they are always claiming, they would not resort to mendacity. Science pursues truth.

The list of scientists as men and women faith is long and growing.

List of Christians in science and technology - Wikipedia

“Science is not only compatible with spirituality, it is a profound source of spirituality. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.”
” - Demon Haunted World, page 29, by Carl Sagan

“I believe in God more because of science than in spite of it.” – William Phillips, Nobel Laureate in Physics

and more in post one

=====

I am an Atheist, shall I ignore the hard nasty bashing made by a religionist?

IMO, threads like those belong in forums where bashing is authorized, aka Zone 3.

but for atheists, and assholes, (notice how I separate them), there is no place for them trolling in R&E.

I completely understand. You feel it is completely proper and even advised for religious folk to insult and degrade those who don't share their particular religious beliefs, and the victims of those attacks should just STFU and take it. Who could possibly find fault with that?

You feel it is completely proper and even advised for religious folk to insult and degrade those who don't share their particular religious beliefs, and the victims of those attacks should just STFU and take it.

IF you see that happening in a Zone One thread, ANY Zone One thread, report it, so it can be moved downstairs.

You don't see that claiming anyone who doesn't share their belief is deserving of hell as an insult? Really?

Did you NOT read my post?

" IF you see that happening in a Zone One thread, ANY Zone One thread, report it, so it can be moved downstairs. "

Can you imagine a religious discussion by Christians that didn't mention their only goal, which is an eternity in heaven to the exclusion of all that don't share their beliefs? No I can't either. Perhaps a private, invitation only thread where you don't have to allow any differences of opinion, but if you have an open discussion, it has to be open to even those that don't fall in line.

??? I know lots of liberal Christians who value inclusion and not judging.
I think the problem is those types may not have time to spare arguing with people who aren't going to change their minds.
The ones who bother to argue are the ones who like to argue!
I don't blame Christianity or religion.
Plenty of believers don't do that.

Yet plenty of believers do. The OP seems to think non believers shouldn't have a right to say they disagree.

The OP seems to think non believers shouldn't have a right to say they disagree.

They have the right to disagree.

In Zone 1, they wouldn't have the right to troll.

(just how hard is that to understand?)

Who decides what is trolling? You? Taz?

Some bureaucrat in Washington?

I do, and you're a sock troll, probably a moderatot's sock to boot.

 

[DudleySmith]

We agree that we don't need religion to tell us how to define what is good and bad or evil

The morality you currently have is the result of the culture you grew up in. Thankfully that was a Christian culture.

The slippery slope proves there is no inherent morality

Yet Catholic France and Spain for several hundred years tried to conquer Europe and failed because mostly Protestant and Christians prevailed, all are Christians.

Yet WW1 and WW2 began in Christian nations, then many other Christian nations joined to kill over 50 MILLION people, that ends with two Nuclear bombs (created mostly by Christians) and ordered to drop on a Shinto nation by a Christian.

Other than that it has a prefect moral track record, meanwhile how many big wars have Atheists started......?

Snicker.....

Rubbish. The Hapsburgs tried to conquer Europe, France merely resisted; both were Catholic, yet France sided with the Protestants against Catholic Spain; it had nothing to with religion and everything to do with feudal politics. WW I was the last Hapsburg Emperor against the last Tsar and Europe as well, and nothing to do with religion either. WW II was left over WW I's unfinished business, again mostly about the remaining problems of the collapse of feudalism in Europe and Russia, combined with a global Depression.

 

[DudleySmith]

Don't feel like going back and finding the posts, but I'm an atheist, and I know for a fact the past and current fatansies re'evolution' are a joke and not 'proven science', and I can also read, hence my historical interest in aspects of the OT and NT as one of the critically important books of western civilization, and I don't have to insult Christians to discuss it.

 

[Natural Citizen]

What you guys need in the religion section is a very persistent Calvinist.

And I might know just the one, too.

buttercup what do you think? You know who I'm talking about.

Could you imagine him on here? Oh boy! Gare awn teed the religion sub forum would be lively and everyone would have the opportunity to consistently discuss theology in an elevated manner.

 

[Grumblenuts]

even Atheists can invoke authority of Christ by agreeing to accept that level of grace and forgiveness from God, regardless what we call this love of truth and humanity or where we say it comes from as a universal force in life.

Um, "even" dolphins exhibit morality because, sorry, ethics are simply not a "God" thing. Not a "human" thing. Not a "Bible" thing. Not an "Antiquity" thing either. It just makes sense for social species to develop ethics for their very survival. The most advanced now easily identify and reject (exhibit intolerance for) all manner of previously popularized hyper-isms, including pure capitalism, socialism, and/or communism. Time to stop bashing those who simply refuse to be rolled when confronted with the oldest, most manipulative con game in the world.. religionism. Some schooling for ya from a bright 18-yr-old freethinker:

In a modern world utterly hot-wired with religion, it is simply expected to see the religious claim invention of the concept of morality. Morality, or the code of human ethics and right and wrong, is often sourced as emerging entirely from religion. This is, of course, a misguided and deceptive claim. Religion did not invent and is entirely unnecessary to the existence and demonstration of morality. In fact, religion is quite the antithesis of morality, and its quite evident contradictions have been apparent in history and are seen clearly in the modern world. Whereas religion often destroys the very morality it claims, the history of morality itself can be traced and explained entirely by the scientific concept of evolution, and morality can even be noted in animal species today. Morality could easily--perhaps with more ease--exist in a world entirely devoid of religion.

 

[DudleySmith]

even Atheists can invoke authority of Christ by agreeing to accept that level of grace and forgiveness from God, regardless what we call this love of truth and humanity or where we say it comes from as a universal force in life.

Um, "even" dolphins exhibit morality because, sorry, ethics are simply not a "God" thing. Not a "human" thing. Not a "Bible" thing. Not an "Antiquity" thing either. The most advanced of our species now easily identify and reject (exhibit intolerance for) all manner of previously popularized hyper-isms, including pure capitalism, socialism, and/or communism. Time to stop bashing those who simply refuse to be rolled when confronted with the oldest, most manipulative con game in the world.. religionism. Some schooling for ya from a bright 18-yr-old freethinker:

In a modern world utterly hot-wired with religion, it is simply expected to see the religious claim invention of the concept of morality. Morality, or the code of human ethics and right and wrong, is often sourced as emerging entirely from religion. This is, of course, a misguided and deceptive claim. Religion did not invent and is entirely unnecessary to the existence and demonstration of morality. In fact, religion is quite the antithesis of morality, and its quite evident contradictions have been apparent in history and are seen clearly in the modern world. Whereas religion often destroys the very morality it claims, the history of morality itself can be traced and explained entirely by the scientific concept of evolution, and morality can even be noted in animal species today. Morality could easily--perhaps with more ease--exist in a world entirely devoid of religion.

Actually modern neuroscience is finding out 'religion' is probably hard-wired into humans, and to lesser extents 'morals' exist in all mammals. This of course must suck for sociopaths and those into mindless self-indulgence and un-restricted greed, but religion and traditions work a lot better for the general society than appeasing spoiled Burb Brats and assorted anti-social nutjobs. We're already getting to watch the commies 'Party' disintegrate into warring faction as their stupid 'Diversity' mantras prove what sane people already know, that it is impossible for a country to survive when it tries to pander to every sniveling bedwetter's neurotic nonsense and ignores the majority. The only people who thinks it can still live with their mommies or have lifetime baby sitter jobs at universities, the modern equivalent of Oz.

 

[buttercup]

What you guys need in the religion section is a very persistent Calvinist.

And I might know just the one, too.

buttercup what do you think? You know who I'm talking about.

Could you imagine him on here? Oh boy! Gare awn teed the religion sub forum would be lively and everyone would have the opportunity to consistently discuss theology in an elevated manner.

I know exactly who you're talking about and here's my reaction: NOOOOOOooooooOOOOOOooooooOOOOOO!!!!!



Actually, on second thought, you probably do have a good point that he would liven up the religion subforum. He's like a lightning rod for controversy. The problem, imo, is that some people might wrongly assume that what he is talking about is actual Christianity, but it's not. Calvinism is wrong and demonic, iyam!

 

[Grumblenuts]

Actually modern neuroscience is finding out 'religion' is probably hard-wired into humans, and to lesser extents 'morals' exist in all mammals. This of course must suck for sociopaths and those into mindless self-indulgence and un-restricted greed, but religion and traditions work a lot better for the general society than appeasing spoiled Burb Brats and assorted anti-social nutjobs.vWe're already getting to watch the commies 'Party' disintegrate into warring faction as their stupid 'Diversity' mantras prove what sane people already know, that it is impossible for a country to survive when it ties to pander to every sniveling bedwetter's neurotic nonsense and ignores the majority.

Partly agree and thanks, but please provide links backing scientific claims. "Sociopaths" and "anti-social" hit the mark, imo. And indeed, more democracy, less hyper -Democratic (and -Republican) Partisan idiocy!

 

[Natural Citizen]

I know exactly who you're talking about and here's my reaction: NOOOOOOooooooOOOOOOooooooOOOOOO!!!!!



Actually, on second thought, you probably do have a good point that he would liven up the religion subforum. He's like a lightning rod for controversy. The problem, imo, is that some people wrongly assume that what he is talking about is actual Christianity, but it's not. Calvinism is wrong and demonic, iyam!

I think the moral of the story is be careful what you ask for. You just might get it. Then you have to ask yourself if you're actually ready for what you've asked for. Like his beliefs or not, he'll force you to defend your position. Well...let's say that he'd definitely invite the opportunity if one so desires that level of dialogue.

I dunno. I'll have to think on it. USMB may it be ready. But there certainly would be ample opportunity to defend one's beliefs in a strictly biblical way and to show off their understanding. Or lack thereof in some instances, without having to deal with the antics of non-believers just looking to disrupt and cause flotsam and jetsam.

I always did enjoy reading the faith based stuff back then. Of course, I egged him on a lot, too, so. lol. Boy, did he pee on everyone's Cheerios. But he was civil about it, though.

 

[buttercup]

I know exactly who you're talking about and here's my reaction: NOOOOOOooooooOOOOOOooooooOOOOOO!!!!!



Actually, on second thought, you probably do have a good point that he would liven up the religion subforum. He's like a lightning rod for controversy. The problem, imo, is that some people wrongly assume that what he is talking about is actual Christianity, but it's not. Calvinism is wrong and demonic, iyam!

I think the moral of the story is be careful what you ask for. You just might get it. Then you have to ask yourself if you're actually ready for what you've asked for. Like his beliefs or not, he'll force you to defend your position. Well...let's say that he'd definitely invite the opportunity if one so desires that level of dialogue.

I dunno. I'll have to think on it. USMB may it be ready. But there certainly would be ample opportunity to defend one's beliefs in a strictly biblical way and to show off their understanding. Or lack thereof in some instances, without having to deal with the antics of non-believers just looking to disrupt and cause flotsam and jetsam.

I always did enjoy reading the faith based stuff back then. Of course, I egged him on a lot, too, so. lol. Boy, did he pee on everyone's Cheerios. But he was civil about it, though.

Yes, I agree that posters like him definitely force one to defend their position. So it does bring about interesting and more in-depth debates. Sometimes though, you get others who are misguided getting into it with him, so it's like the blind leading the blind. And then those who are on the fence reading the thread but not posting can get the wrong idea about Christianity. To put it bluntly, Calvinists like him tend to turn people away from God and Christianity.

Not to get off topic, but it's unfortunate that there are believers who are correct on SOME things, but they completely leave out one of the most (if not the most) important attributes of God, love. As it says in 1 Corinthians 13, it doesn't matter if one has knowledge, faith that can move mountains, gifts and talents, etc... they are nothing but a clanging cymbal without love. That's what comes to mind when I think of that dude, a clanging cymbal. haha (but maybe I'm being too hard on him?)

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

I know exactly who you're talking about and here's my reaction: NOOOOOOooooooOOOOOOooooooOOOOOO!!!!!



Actually, on second thought, you probably do have a good point that he would liven up the religion subforum. He's like a lightning rod for controversy. The problem, imo, is that some people wrongly assume that what he is talking about is actual Christianity, but it's not. Calvinism is wrong and demonic, iyam!

I think the moral of the story is be careful what you ask for. You just might get it. Then you have to ask yourself if you're actually ready for what you've asked for. Like his beliefs or not, he'll force you to defend your position. Well...let's say that he'd definitely invite the opportunity if one so desires that level of dialogue.

I dunno. I'll have to think on it. USMB may it be ready. But there certainly would be ample opportunity to defend one's beliefs in a strictly biblical way and to show off their understanding. Or lack thereof in some instances, without having to deal with the antics of non-believers just looking to disrupt and cause flotsam and jetsam.

I always did enjoy reading the faith based stuff back then. Of course, I egged him on a lot, too, so. lol. Boy, did he pee on everyone's Cheerios. But he was civil about it, though.

Yes, I agree that posters like him definitely force one to defend their position. So it does bring about interesting and more in-depth debates. Sometimes though, you get others who are misguided getting into it with him, so it's like the blind leading the blind. And then those who are on the fence reading the thread but not posting can get the wrong idea about Christianity. To put it bluntly, Calvinists like him tend to turn people away from God and Christianity.

Not to get off topic, but it's unfortunate that there are believers who are correct on SOME things, but they completely leave out one of the most (if not the most) important attributes of God, love. As it says in 1 Corinthians 13, it doesn't matter if one has knowledge, faith that can move mountains, gifts and talents, etc... they are nothing but a clanging cymbal without love. That's what comes to mind when I think of that dude, a clanging cymbal. haha (but maybe I'm being too hard on him?)

You have the rest of us curious. What is this name that shall not be mentioned?

 

[buttercup]

I know exactly who you're talking about and here's my reaction: NOOOOOOooooooOOOOOOooooooOOOOOO!!!!!



Actually, on second thought, you probably do have a good point that he would liven up the religion subforum. He's like a lightning rod for controversy. The problem, imo, is that some people wrongly assume that what he is talking about is actual Christianity, but it's not. Calvinism is wrong and demonic, iyam!

I think the moral of the story is be careful what you ask for. You just might get it. Then you have to ask yourself if you're actually ready for what you've asked for. Like his beliefs or not, he'll force you to defend your position. Well...let's say that he'd definitely invite the opportunity if one so desires that level of dialogue.

I dunno. I'll have to think on it. USMB may it be ready. But there certainly would be ample opportunity to defend one's beliefs in a strictly biblical way and to show off their understanding. Or lack thereof in some instances, without having to deal with the antics of non-believers just looking to disrupt and cause flotsam and jetsam.

I always did enjoy reading the faith based stuff back then. Of course, I egged him on a lot, too, so. lol. Boy, did he pee on everyone's Cheerios. But he was civil about it, though.

Yes, I agree that posters like him definitely force one to defend their position. So it does bring about interesting and more in-depth debates. Sometimes though, you get others who are misguided getting into it with him, so it's like the blind leading the blind. And then those who are on the fence reading the thread but not posting can get the wrong idea about Christianity. To put it bluntly, Calvinists like him tend to turn people away from God and Christianity.

Not to get off topic, but it's unfortunate that there are believers who are correct on SOME things, but they completely leave out one of the most (if not the most) important attributes of God, love. As it says in 1 Corinthians 13, it doesn't matter if one has knowledge, faith that can move mountains, gifts and talents, etc... they are nothing but a clanging cymbal without love. That's what comes to mind when I think of that dude, a clanging cymbal. haha (but maybe I'm being too hard on him?)

You have the rest of us curious. What is this name that shall not be mentioned?

Haha. It's a guy who we knew on another forum we used to post on. A hardcore Calvinist who, as NC put it, peed in everyone's cheerios. I don't know if I should mention his name, no one here would know him anyway unless they posted on that forum.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

A hardcore Calvinist who, as NC put it, peed in everyone's cheerios

So kinda the same as the Atheists in the religion forum