discrimination against agnostics & atheists

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, I used the word 'theists'. But if you had bothered to read what I wrote, instead of going straight into insulting mode, you would see that I did not say 'all theists', I was merely pointing out that the people in question were theists.
I find it amazing that despite us arguing about this for quite some time you haven't gone back to re-read the post. ...[text shortened]... and killing is an ashole.
And you call that abstaining? Do you know what 'abstain' means?[/b]

"Clearly not. You have repeatedly called people fundamentalist asholes merely for expressing a point of view different than yours. You have no respect whatsoever for them."

other religions that practice tolerance, compassion and love. of course i bloody have no respect for rjhinds when he calls the genocide of canaanites or the people killed in his flood "righteous". of course i have no respect for westboro baptists who behave like asholes towards gays and dead soldier's families (at their funerals no less). they ARE asholes, and they deserve no respect. i don't need or want to respect the right of others to be asholes.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, I used the word 'theists'. But if you had bothered to read what I wrote, instead of going straight into insulting mode, you would see that I did not say 'all theists', I was merely pointing out that the people in question were theists.
I find it amazing that despite us arguing about this for quite some time you haven't gone back to re-read the post. ...[text shortened]... and killing is an ashole.
And you call that abstaining? Do you know what 'abstain' means?[/b]

"This forum has rules about bad language. I think you should respect those rules as well as respecting other people that you know next to nothing about. "

i think you should grow up if a fuk offends you. as for respecting people who say that if it were not for god, they would rape and kill, i respectfully disagree and respectfully reiterate they are fundamentalist asholes.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

You were offended because you either don't understand English very well, or you took it upon yourself to do some mind reading. I am sorry you were offended, and it was certainly not the intention of the post, nor the actual meaning of the post.
However, you behaviour is unreasonable and overboard so I am alerting your posts to the moderator.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You were offended because you either don't understand English very well, or you took it upon yourself to do some mind reading. I am sorry you were offended, and it was certainly not the intention of the post, nor the actual meaning of the post.
However, you behaviour is unreasonable and overboard so I am alerting your posts to the moderator.

yes, i am the one who doesn't understand english. i am the one who used the general term to designate a very small subgroup of people who just happen to hold offensive views.



/sarcasm (in case it wasn't obvious)

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
you still don't get it, do you? did you go through all the entries? did you look on answersingenesis site? i can make a series of fake websites inventing any study i can think of. cosmopolitan does it all the time.


i mentioned countless times that studies are unreliable. THAT IS THE BLOODY POINT.

that they can be made to "prove" anything. yet you ...[text shortened]... ppear to be "winning" just because you couldn't find any counter-arguments to the points i made?

No, the point is that you cannot find even one study on the internet that backs you up unless you create it yourself. That is the point.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Consider the possibility of finding oneself emotionally connected to a person who could hold such views. Would this not be a detestable condition?

I have no idea what you are talking about. Is that intentional?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I have no idea what you are talking about. Is that intentional?

Hmm. I thought the post you queried originally was clear enough; that you are still unable to comprehend despite additional clarification baffles me and I lack the motivation to elucidate further.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
No, the point is that you cannot find even one study on the internet that backs you up unless you create it yourself. That is the point.

yeh, that's mature. can you get over that and move to the important points?


here: i will help you. there is no study about that. you win that one. can you address now your hasty generalizations?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"Clearly not. You have repeatedly called people fundamentalist asholes merely for expressing a point of view different than yours. You have no respect whatsoever for them."

other religions that practice tolerance, compassion and love. of course i bloody have no respect for rjhinds when he calls the genocide of canaanites or the people killed in his flood ...[text shortened]... and they deserve no respect. i don't need or want to respect the right of others to be asholes.

How did I get the idea that we might be on the same side? Well, so much for that.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
How did I get the idea that we might be on the same side? Well, so much for that.

The Instructor

I just goes to show what an assshole you are with the emphasis on the asss.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I just goes to show what an assshole you are with the emphasis on the asss.

Yeah, but my shyte don't stink bad like yours do. Ha.

The Instructor

Originally posted by sonhouse
I just goes to show what an assshole you are with the emphasis on the asss.

you seriously enjoy banging your head against the wall, hoping that maybe, just maybe, this time the brick will crumble.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yes, i am the one who doesn't understand english. i am the one who used the general term to designate a very small subgroup of people who just happen to hold offensive views.
/sarcasm (in case it wasn't obvious)

Yes, you clearly have difficulty understanding English.
Your profile says you are from Romania. Lets assume this is true.
Suppose I say the following:
"Yesterday, I met a Romanian who said that cows can fly."
Are you now offended because you think I accused all Romanians of thinking that cows can fly?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, you clearly have difficulty understanding English.
Your profile says you are from Romania. Lets assume this is true.
Suppose I say the following:
"Yesterday, I met a Romanian who said that cows can fly."
Are you now offended because you think I accused all Romanians of thinking that cows can fly?

you seriously need to choose better romanians to talk to.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, you clearly have difficulty understanding English.
Your profile says you are from Romania. Lets assume this is true.
Suppose I say the following:
"Yesterday, I met a Romanian who said that cows can fly."
Are you now offended because you think I accused all Romanians of thinking that cows can fly?

there is a small matter of context. there is a difference between someone announcing "i met a person from group X that said this stupid thing" and A and B discussing how stupid X's are and C saying "this X said this stupid thing". in the first case, someone said a stupid thing and happened to belong to group X. in the second case, that event is used as a proof that group X is stupid. it is a generalization from small numbers. especially since X really includes Y(a small subgroup) who holds the views C was talking about.


every aspect of a comment in a debate matters. why did you use "theist" and not "human"? why didn't you use "a mammal said this incredibly offensive thing?". why did it have to be theists, a group that you know for sure has lots of decent, open minded people? in fact, nobody uses "theist" when referring to a westboro baptist. nobody uses "theist" when referring to a muslim that advocates the destruction of all infidels.

why did you? you expect me to believe you have no motive? why should i when you repeatedly said how i am no different than rjhinds?