by Chariklo 553 Replies latest jw friends
Data-Dog a couple of days ago you named me as the second most rude and insulting atheist on the forum. Now KS is banned do I graduate to gold medal?
Just for the record I totally reject your personal opinon of me. Being confident about what you think and explaining it without fear of favour on a religious discusson forum is not rude or condescending.
Ridiculing scientific facts while admitting to self-imposed ignorance of the evidence is rude.
oh naff - KS got banne d? Hopefullu these are only temporary.
edit. this is ----- doh
EP, what are you supposed to do if you have to pass gas on an airplane, but the bathroom is being hogged by someone else?
-Sab
Cofty, I was commenting on the comment that there are different kinds of atheists. I was stating that an atheist is an atheist. There aren't different brands. Any difference in a person's personal view that their atheism is " Rejection of or denial of the existence of God or gods" would cause them to NOT be an atheist. It's a black and white issue. There aren't different brands of atheism. If you veer from the definition given, most likely you are agnostic.
Cofty, I still like you! I don't think you're rude, insulting, angry, "hateful", etc...
Jesus h christ data dog your such a clown!!!
(i just wanted to post again, i dont have anything more to say)
Cofty is as blunt as can be, but not hateful. He's actually the opposite of hate. He has a lot of love to give.
-Sab
Cofty, you are being rude right now. I apologize if I hurt your feelings with my comments. I also apologized to KS and anyone else, including believers. Accept it if you want too. I also consider myself a poor communicator sometimes. If I could have articulated what I felt when KS insulted me personally, as well as my dead grandmother, then I would not have resorted to being rude in return. There is no excuse for bad behavior, and bad behavior doesn't justify more bad behavior. You may not care how you come off in conversation, but if you want to help someone you should. Just my opinion.
Ridiculing scientific facts while admitting to self-imposed ignorance of the evidence is rude.
No one has proven a hoofed mammal became a dolphin, that is not ridicule.
beleivers vs non believers...
OR
masturbation?
which is the most popular thread subject?
note my playful edit of this thread title. It is just as valid.
I think there are generally good and bad within every category of beliefs and non beliefs.
For ones who would do as you say. The good ones were firm believers in a religion, and when they discovered it wasn't true, it was so devastating they lost faith in everything, if they looked at every religion they found untruth in every one. So they see believers as setting themselves up for hurt and get frustrated then may ridicule. If there is a chance just the entire world was blind, then truth comes out, and it makes sense, and answers controversies, they may believe again, but they would be very cautious this time and check everything. They are right completely free as well but they are good people, they still wouldn't steal, etc, they have morals even if they think this is the only life. If they do what is considered sin, it's based off of if it's hurting anybody else or not.
Then the bad kind, these ones do not have morals, and I'm not talking about anything that might be considered sin, I mean they will be unethical, thieves, pursue married people. They do not follow love and treat neighbor as you want to be treated. They hope and would resist very hard if proof started to come out about there being a real God. They would ridicule and really hope that when they die, if they got away with murder, they truly did.
