Quck review: I am evil, a criminal, a believer poacher (and now Bohm is too), and thick skulled.
You seem to fall right into the predictible atheist groove of cateloging insults and using them to discredit the insulter without context. This is just like what you do with God, I see. You are not evil, I gave you a definition of evil of which you placed yourself within logically. I was actually trying to give you an out and you decided not to take it, likely to use it against me later. You are not a criminal, you are a discriminator of people of faith, I blame Bill Maher.
Lets be honest instead of bashing me, because it was never my intention to bash you, but to be honest about how I felt about the matter and your actions on this forum against believers. The endless condesending replies to people who belief in the ridiculous. Frankly I am disgusted to have ever been part of it. I will not join a gang and bully others. Did you see bohm come out of the clouds, (KAHHHHH!) when he saw a fellow atheist being bullied by a believer? He did bring up a good point however. That I cannot call witch burning morally grey while insinuating that NC is evil and I thank him for that, but I'm not going to take it all back because it came from my heart. She is not evil, she has an 8,000+ post agenda and condescends believers without knowing it. You can't change if you don't know what's wrong. I just wish that maybe she could be a smigen more tolerant to people who's beliefs are tied to their heart because of experiences. You tend to get incredibly cold, NC, when you want to be and that's not a good personality trait. I insult when I get mad, which is a bad personality trait, we all have them. We all have DNA.
Uhm----Bill Maher represents the corrupt scientific community and also the democrats, who are also atheists.
Bill Maher is a spokesperson for the scientific community not a represenative. A rep would need to be a scientist. And I never said all democrats are atheists you are misrepresenting me likely because you are not happy with what I have said to you. Democrats are the ONLY mainstream modern group who caters specifically to the atheist demographic. They are a safe haven for atheists as opposed to the Republican party which is more God centered. There is a clear war there and you are merely defending your gang.
Sab can't say for sure if it is wrong to burn witches at the stake, and thinks of it as a logical trap and a gotcha question. I refused to answer Bohm's question as to whether water was wet, because I knew he was trying to trap me and instead pointed out that water could be solid, liquid or gas. Dodge that bullet.
Once again, you are misrepresenting me to make yourself look good and be funny. Burning witches is wrong, but the blame doesn't fall on the witch burners, it falls on the culture and leaders who allow it which makes it an incredibly complex problem which is not the way anyone has presented it. They simply wanted a "yes or no" of which I didn't give them and now they are frustrated, too bad. The fact is that morality is not physical and cannot be catelogged by the scientific method. For instance, why do people generally not like eating food that is still alive? Philosophy still packs a punch and has much to offer the world. The scientific method is not a replacement for philosophy as the atheists want it so bad to be. To learn about human truth and the mind we must delve into our ancient writings and use largely philosophy to ascertain it.
Sab...I hate to see you speaking to people like that...especially since I defended you when you were being treated that way. Seeing you do it is disheartening.
So you think my analysis of NC is incorrect or just rude? She is stuck to her ways and she won't budge, that's thick headed to me. I'd call it faith, but it would make her mad. It's disheartening for me to see someone as respectable as you making a comparrison of this conversation to others where I was mercilessly attacked over and over. It's different, and if you disagree then stop defending me, it wont hurt my feelings.
-Sab