Atheists: Just as obnoxious as Christians

[rug]

A fight over school Bibles gets ugly -- and kids are the big losers

Friday, Jun 14, 2013 02:51 PM EDT
By Mary Elizabeth Williams

Just because you’re in the right doesn’t mean you have to be a jerk about it. Today’s case in point: the battle going on right now in Florida’s Orange County over who gets to be the biggest loudmouth.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation and the Central Florida Freethought Community had a perfectly valid point recently when they challenged the distribution of Bibles in the local high schools. Earlier this year, a Collier County judge ruled in favor of “passive” dissemination of the Bibles, allowing them to be laid out on tables for the taking. That’s a clearly stupid move; one that suggests the judge has zero grasp on the term “separation of church and state.” One does not leave Bibles willy-nilly around schools, any more than one leads a Christian prayer session in school — another battle the Freedom From Religion Foundation recently fought and won. (The victory was somewhat mitigated by a local valedictorian’s defiant recitation of the Lord’s Prayer during graduation anyway.)

But after “1,700 students left school with Bibles” in the wake of one of those “passive” distributions in 11 schools last winter, the atheist groups decided to make a point. They asked for permission to distribute some materials of their own, including books and pamphlets with titles including “An X-Rated Book,” “Jesus Is Dead” and “Why I Am Not a Muslim.” Which if I’m not mistaken is a douche move.

A district spokesman said that the groups were in fact permitted to distribute “a number of fliers critical of religion,” but drew the line at the more incendiary books and materials, arguing they “could cause a disruption.” David Williamson of Central Florida Free Thought Community told the local news station WFTV Thursday, “We had no intention of filing a lawsuit, and we are not interested in filing a lawsuit, but we have no other choice at this point.” They just couldn’t help it! In the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s statement Thursday, the organization acknowledged that “distribution of limited freethought literature was allowed on May 2, the National Day of Prayer,” but said it had filed the suit “for censoring distribution of [other] freethought materials while allowing unfettered distribution of the Christian bible.”

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/14/atheists_just_as_obnoxious_as_christians/

[Live and Learn]

1. Tolerance is a virtue. We could use a lot more of it. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

23. So we should tolerate violation of church-state separation?

What other clear abuses of state power should we tolerate?

[hrmjustin]

41. No you should never tolerate abuses of seperation of church and state.

[Politicalboi]

2. We can NEVER be as obnoxious as christians

We don't have TV shows calling for gays to be put in camps or to be killed. WE have to put up with shit like "in god we trust" on OUR money. Or god bless you when we sneeze. So when the christians want to take it back a notch, we Atheist have a LONG way to go.

[rug]

4. Sneezing?

[cbayer]

34. Which TV show is that?

[Leontius]

40. Congratulations you have come a long way.

[hrmjustin]

47. We are not all like that!

[Humanist_Activist]

3. Ever been badgered about where your dead mom is by an atheist, no of course not!

But Christians? They have no decency filter.

[rug]

5. Actually I have been.

Didn't happen twice though.

[rug]

7. Go on, do it.

[Humanist_Activist]

8. I will just say this, you are the epitome of Christian morality.

Which equals to poor human morality, and no sense of decency.

[rug]

9. And you are the epitome of the article.

Thanks.

[Humanist_Activist]

10. Really, who is the one who makes up stories just to try to hurt, and I do mean...

HURT others, who?

Look in the mirror.

[rug]

11. Then maybe you should consider what you say and to who you say it before you type.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1018411567

[Humanist_Activist]

12. You are a fucking sick individual. n/t

[rug]

13. The only sick thing I see is your pathological attempt to corner grief.

[Humanist_Activist]

14. Oh please, I just see a typical Christian who thinks lying for the Lord will give him a ticket to...

heaven.

[rug]

15. Tell me what a "typical Christian" is.

Then I'll tell you what a typical asshole is.

[Humanist_Activist]

16. Actually, I will correct myself, a typical Christian is generally better than their religion...

you, however, are not.

[rug]

17. Go on, say what a typical Christian is.

You keep proving the OP.

[ZombieHorde]

78. A typical Christian is

a constantly shifting arrangement of atoms.

[cleanhippie]

91. No need to, you've got it covered.

[ZombieHorde]

76. This personal attack is a bit much, don't you think?

You're not really coming off as reasonable in this thread.

[skepticscott]

22. Not sure which is sadder

that you felt the need to make this up, or that you actually expected anyone sensible to swallow it.

[rug]

36. I'll help you out.

What's sadder is your belief in extra sensory perception to determine what's true and what's not. What's saddest is trotting out dead mothers to make some dubious point about how awful people are to atheists.

What's most revolting is the thought of discussing in any way with you what happened to my mother. Go find some other shit pile to infest.

[skepticscott]

46. Nice try at bluster

but in your case, no special perception is needed. And you were the one felt it necessary to keep discussing your mother in order to win a point in this argument, not me. I'd have been perfectly happy if you'd not responded concerning her at all, but you seemed to find it necessary, for some unknown reason. Is appearing to be right and getting the last word EVERY time really that important to you?

Guess we'll find out.

[rug]

58. It's your cohort that brought a dead mother into this.

And I don't give a shit if you're perfectly happy or not when I answer a direct question.

Now go ooze elsewhere.

[skepticscott]

69. I'll let you know who my "cohorts" are, ruggie

You just stick to consorting with your own.

And no one forced you to respond to the question, direct or otherwise, now did they? If you found the subject out of bounds, you could have ignored it and said nothing, but you're just not capable of that, are you? You not only chose to weigh in about your mother, but then to gripe about it. Typical.

[LostOne4Ever]

18. I am sorry to hear that happened to you

People who do that don't have any decency.

But I feel you are being a bit unfair in your point. Not all Christians do that, and those who do it are the ones who are likely to persecute other Christians for not believing in the exact same manner as they do.

Its entirely possible for Rug to have had that happen to him. Imagine a WBC member talking to a liberal catholic. According to them if you are not a member of the WBC they very well could badger the catholic about their mother being in hell.

Based on your name I take it you are a secular humanist like I am? Isn't a part of that trying to understand others and being compassionate to them? Maybe he is being honest with you? I get why you are angry at people who would say something like that, but i have seen nothing in this thread to warrant the comments you are making toward Rug.

Maybe I am missing something that happened in the past as I have not been here that long, but I don't see the reason for the hostility you are expressing toward him. It seems misplaced.

[cbayer]

35. All Christians? Some Christians? It is really pretty hypocritical for you to talk

about decency filters when you make a statement like this.

[hrmjustin]

43. We are not all like that my friend!

[Lordquinton]

19. I disagree

there are far fewer Atheists, so the combined noise level will never reach as high. You might start to have a point when Atheists start going door to door to bother you, but until then, not een in the same ball park

[LostOne4Ever]

20. I can't help but feel

That the author of that article is trying to make herself sound to be superior to everyone by her article.

I strongly disagree with her premise. The FFRF is trying to make a point and I think part of that point is that some religious expression is inherently offensive to other religions and if you allow all religious expression you are going to have to accept beliefs that you personally find insulting.

Its better to just bar all proselyting on school grounds.

[Fumesucker]

21. The Salon articles are aimed at exactly one thing, getting a lot of outraged clicks

I long ago quit feeding this beast, I'm actually a bit surprised that our favorite Christian is busy trying to shovel outrage in its voracious maw.

Come on rug, you are actually better and more thoughtful than this, I've read enough of your posts to know it so quit sandbagging.

In cultures where there isn't such a strident religious movement atheism too is less strident, stridency begets stridency, particularly in a culture like ours that thinks he who shouts loudest is most correct.

[Warren Stupidity]

24. The op is obsessed with atheism.

One suspects he might just be one.

[rug]

38. You have a peculiar definition of obseessed, Warren Stupidity.

One suspects you might just be projecting given the plethora of posts attacking religion by alleged atheists. The disruption is clear. Whether the nonbelief is genuine remains to be seen.

[Warren Stupidity]

48. Obsessing as in posting article after article after article commenting on atheism.

You honestly don't think you have just a teeny bit of an obsession?

[skepticscott]

53. Not even on atheism

or the central question of whether any gods even exist, but on Atheists Behaving Badly or the internal politics of the so-called atheist "movement".

[Warren Stupidity]

61. Exactly. But as the op never admits anything.....

[rug]

59. You have it backwards.

Obsession consists of incessant posts attacking something you claim does not exist. There are words for that besides obsession.

As to atheism, it's an interesting subject. Do you not like to discuss it in all its multi-splendored aspects?

[Warren Stupidity]

65. "Obsession consists of incessant posts attacking something you claim does not exist."

Well no, it is the very real religion and relgious organizations that are the problem and that are the subject of most posts by atheists here.

But Rug, c'mon, fess up, you are just a bit obsessed with atheism, atheists, atheist squabbles. Do we need to go over your posting history in this forum? Why even try to deny it?

[rug]

66. Religious actions are fair game, even though they'yre usually clumsily attacked.

But you, if, you are either honest or observant, would acknowledge that it goes far beyond that. Their is a steady theme, sometimes explicit, sometimes implicit, that belief itself is the problem and is the motive for the abhorred actions. You really can't bullshit around that.

And, no, I am not obsessed with atheism. I am if anything either bemused by the claims made in its name or irritated by the obnoxious fervid tenor used in promoting a weird view of it. But, if surrounded by it, I have no problem whatsoever dealing with it.

Now, go on, warren, let's discuss my posting history in this forum and I'll discuss yours. I look forward to it.

[Phillip McCleod]

31. too true.. AlterNet is the same thing..

..and now they're even the same daily beast.. pun intended.

[rug]

37. Why, are you outraged?

Frankly, I see more obnoxious behavior than outraged behavior. There are plenty of assholes on both sides of the street.

[Fumesucker]

45. No, I didn't click and haven't clicked on one of those Salon articles in a long time

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. A pointless article

The author says "If you’re concerned that inappropriate materials are being handed out to kids, you don’t threaten to do the same thing. " But at no point does she try to suggest what you do instead. The first action was to say the materials were inappropriate, and they tried to get a ruling to that effect. But they were told, no, it's OK to put out bibles:

The district allowed the Bible distribution because a Collier County judge ruled the schools there had to allow "passive" distribution, which involved putting Bibles on a table and allowing students to take them.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2013-06-13/news/os-atheists-sue-orange-schools-20130613_1_central-florida-freethought-community-atheist-o-hair

Does Williams think that the correct action is just to do nothing, allow the bible distribution to continue, but never try to give the children alternative reading? Isn't that just conceding education to the religiously motivated, allowing their myths to go unchallenged, as if they are reality?

Williams seems to think that there's some satisfaction in sitting back and saying "these religious texts are wrong, but I won't do anything at all to fight the message they put out - I'll just know, in my heart of hearts, that I'm right. Maybe the children will somehow get that message from my aura of complacency".

[skepticscott]

28. The author is an imbecile

And they write for Salon. But I repeat myself.

She apparently never thought deeply enough about this, or talked to anyone who had, to tumble to the fact that doing the same thing as the people you're opposing in this case might just be the best way to drive home to them in a way they can understand what a bad idea it is to hand out this sort of material in schools at all. Not to mention the best way to expose the hypocrisy of people who claim to want "equal treatment", but really only want special treatment for religion (THEIR religion).

[2ndAmForComputers]

55. So's anybody who agrees with her.

[rug]

60. So is anybody who's obnoxious.

[Phillip McCleod]

30. nail.. meet hammer. +1000

there is nothing i can add to that, so i just posted xkcd instead.

[no_hypocrisy]

26. There isn't a monolith version of an atheist. We come in several dimensions.

Humanists, Ethical Culturalists, Unitarians, Freethinkers to name a few.


And from personal experience, we have quite the spectrum of personalities within each group. Yes, some can be intolerant and hard to discuss anything with. But remember, we too have to contend with those folks, not just religionists. They snap at us for not sharing their dogma.

As for FFRF, they go where no other individual or group goes. They initiate lawsuits that the ACLU defers. Without the lawsuits, there would be a contagion of religion being forced upon children in public schools where they are legal sitting ducks, with the requirement that children attend public school if they don't have private education or if they aren't homeschooled. If the language of FFRF seems a bit strident at times, it is measured to the stridency of the religious organizations that believe they have a God-given right to impose their religion upon non-members of their sect. I don't see anything wrong with that response.

[rug]

39. I believe she's criticizing the obnoxious ones, regardless of their dimensions.

[whathehell]

79. No kidding...When are you going to realize the same thing applies to Christians

not to mention other non-atheists?

[bunnies]

27. When I come knocking on your door, uninvited, trying to convert you...

You can say Im just as obnoxious. Until then, not so much.

[Phillip McCleod]

29. xkcd to the rescue.. once gain.

never gets old, imo..

[longship]

32. Not another one.

Yet another atheists are mean, nasty, strident, militant, or whatever negative attribute can be assigned to them.

I think that the author of the Salon article is confusing atheists with the Christians -- yes, in this country it is usually Christians -- who insist on a right to use public schools as a place to convert children to Jesus. They are always doing this shit.

But when an organization, whether it be atheist (FFRF) or not (AU), chooses to fight back they're being mean, aggressive, etc.

These Christians just don't want the first amendment to apply to them, except for the free expression part which applies only to them.

Disgusting!

[cbayer]

33. Interesting take on this and I see her point, but I am not sure how else the FFRF could have

addressed the issue.

The tried and failed to stop the distribution of the bibles. What else could they have done but insist that they have an equal opportunity, then challenge the denial to let them do so.

[Squinch]

42. Show me someone who is certain they are right on the subject of god or life after death

(this includes any Christian or Atheist who claims certainty), and who insists that those who do not share the same belief are worthy of ridicule, and I'll show you an asshole.

[cbayer]

44. Agree.

edited because auto-fill just takes over sometimes!

[skepticscott]

49. So calling creationists

"A bunch of dumbasses" was not "ridicule" on your part? Gotcha!

[skepticscott]

50. So you don't think

that people who believe that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of "god" or who think that the earth is 6000 years old, even through you don't, aren't worthy of ridicule? Is anyone who ridicules creationists an "asshole"?

[Squinch]

64. Creationism doesn't make sense to me. But if someone decides that he believes in creationism,

and if he does NOT try to force his belief on me or anyone else, and he doesn't try to institutionalize his belief system in educational or political settings, if he doesn't try to impose his beliefs on anyone else's body or lifestyle or persecute anyone for disagreeing with him, I don't see any need to ridicule him or fight him or dislike him.

I'd venture to say that if you get to know ANYONE well enough, you will find fundamental areas of strong disagreement in beliefs.

I personally believe in god, but don't follow a religion and have a very idiosyncratic belief system. If someone decides that atheism makes sense for him, but doesn't feel the need to belittle me for my beliefs, I have no problem with him. I also have no need to think less of him for having different beliefs than I do. Because the fact is, neither of us actually knows squat about it.

On the other hand, if someone tries to impose his beliefs on the lives of other people (as in the case of those who persecute gay people, because they have decided they know the mind of god and they have decided that god doesn't like homosexuality), I will (and do) fight their actions tooth and nail. Not the beliefs, the actions.

But the undeniable fact is that what happens after we die is un-knowable. So for me to insist that your beliefs about the un-knowable are stupider than my beliefs about the un-knowable would be really, really dumb. If everyone understood that, there might be some people who think creationism is true, and some people who think that homosexuality and abortion and premarital sex are wrong, and some people who think that we are all just a dream JR Ewing is having, but they'd keep their opinions to themselves, not try to impose their beliefs on anyone else.

[skepticscott]

68. Obviously if creationism were never mentioned out loud

There would be no reason for sensible people to say anything about. But keeping mum is not what creationists do, and that wasn't really my question, was it?

And how does it make sense to only fight someone's actions and not the idiocy of the beliefs that underlie them? People who act for and against equal rights for homosexuals are both acting out of deeply held, sincere and fervent beliefs. How do you justify opposing either one, since their motivation and justification is the same? Based on how well the supporting beliefs are founded in reality, of course. Show that the the beliefs are whackadoodle, and you've gone a long way towards blunting the effectiveness of the actions supposedly justified by them, yes? Not that ridicule is the only weapon to use, but it is undeniably an effective one.

Ridicule is used every day on this site against Republicans and their ilk, to great acclaim. But of course, when it comes to religion, the same tactic is decried as unjustifiable and bigoted, thanks to the privilege from criticism that religionists claim for their worldview.

[Squinch]

84. Good luck with trying to control the beliefs of others.

I have never seen anyone change anyone else's beliefs by saying "your beliefs differ from my beliefs, therefore you are wrong" or "I believe your beliefs are stupid, and therefore you can't have them." In fact that attitude is responsible for most of the ills in the world today.

Isn't the fact that creationists are trying to impose their beliefs on you precisely what makes you object to creationists? Why would you then think it is OK for you to turn around and tell them what to believe? You think their beliefs are wacky. So do I. So what? They think our beliefs are wacky. Who decides who gets to win that one? (Hint: No one ever wins that one.)

If you are talking about their actions of trying to impose creationism on school curricula, or trying to discriminate against gay people, I'll be right there next to you fighting against them. But don't look for my support when you are telling them what to believe. Because you don't have any more right to do that than they do. And because for me that puts you in the same category as the people telling me that I have to believe in creationism or telling me that I have to believe homosexuality is wrong.

Beliefs about god or what happens after we die? You don't know and I don't know who is right. No one knows, no one has ever known. So I'll believe what I believe and I'll leave you alone to believe what you believe. And if you believe something other than what I believe, have at it. No matter to me. If you try and impose that belief on me against my will, I'll smack you down any way I can. I'll consider you to be precisely the same as the Creationists and the people who persecute gay people.

[skepticscott]

89. Wow, you're all about the straw men, aren't you?

I have never seen anyone change anyone else's beliefs by saying "your beliefs differ from my beliefs, therefore you are wrong" or "I believe your beliefs are stupid, and therefore you can't have them."

Seriously? These the only possibilities you can think of for changing anyone's opinion or belief? How about "These beliefs have no basis in reality, and here's a mountain of evidence showing why"? or "These beliefs are utterly ridiculous because of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and public policy should never be based on them"?

Isn't the fact that creationists are trying to impose their beliefs on you precisely what makes you object to creationists? Why would you then think it is OK for you to turn around and tell them what to believe? You think their beliefs are wacky. So do I. So what? They think our beliefs are wacky. Who decides who gets to win that one? (Hint: No one ever wins that one.)

I object to creationists because they try to force the teaching of their false and misbegotten beliefs as science, in public schools, and spread mythology as fact among the general populace. So, yes, I will tell as many sensible people as I can why their beliefs are foolish, and what the truth is. As far as the hard-core ultra-delusional believers, I could frankly care less if they ever move beyond the middle ages, as long as they are prevented from spreading their fantasies into public education and public policy. They can believe what they want inside the compound, as far as I'm concerned. But this is not really about convincing those types, now is it? It's about convincing people who aren't sure. It's about convincing that deciding vote on the school board or in the state legislature who thinks it sounds reasonable to teach "alternate" theories or to "teach the controversy". And what's more likely to sway beliefs in that case? Saying "creationism is silly, and here's why", or saying "I deeply respect creationist beliefs even though I think they could very well be wrong?" Which is more likely to leave someone with the impression that there might really be something to it? And yes, progress IS made in that fight all the time, just not in the United States. People's beliefs about creationism HAVE changed, all over the world, and the notion that creationism should take an equal place with evolution in public school biology classes is now regarded with amusement in many countries, when it didn't used to be.

If you are talking about their actions of trying to impose creationism on school curricula, or trying to discriminate against gay people, I'll be right there next to you fighting against them. But don't look for my support when you are telling them what to believe. Because you don't have any more right to do that than they do. And because for me that puts you in the same category as the people telling me that I have to believe in creationism or telling me that I have to believe homosexuality is wrong.

No, I won't tell that anyone that they MUST believe something. But I have no problem saying "This is what decent, rational people believe" and telling them why. It's then their choice and yours if they want to be included in those categories, whether they puff up with a threat about a "smackdown" or not.

[Squinch]

92. So you agree with my central argument:

"As far as the hard-core ultra-delusional believers, I could frankly care less if they ever move beyond the middle ages, as long as they are prevented from spreading their fantasies into public education and public policy." This is exactly what I have said repeatedly.

Yes, people's beliefs about creationism have changed. Do you think it was because people like you ridiculed them and tried to dictate what they could or could not believe? Or is it because they were taught about evolution and biology?

And speaking of straw men: "Saying "creationism is silly, and here's why", or saying "I deeply respect creationist beliefs even though I think they could very well be wrong?" Who said they deeply respect creationist beliefs? I don't find creationism sensible, and wouldn't have any problem saying that to a creationist and telling them why. That distinction is one you made up. Perhaps what you are not understanding is that you can honestly state a dissenting opinion without ridiculing the listener.

"No, I won't tell that anyone that they MUST believe something. But I have no problem saying "This is what decent, rational people believe" and telling them why." Glad to hear that you, like all fundamentalist Christians, believe that YOU, you personally, are the arbiter of decency and rationality.

I entered this discussion with you thinking it would be a discussion. You have, completely unnecessarily, made it into something of a fight. In your fight, you are using the same argument that would be made by any fundamentalist Christian: "I am right, and if you don't believe what I believe, you are not a decent person." Your position is just the opposite side of the same coin of fundamentalism. It has the same hubris, the same belief that you are entitled to judge others. Just as I don't engage in arguments with fundamentalist Christians about their beliefs, I won't engage further with you.

But just so you know, for all your efforts, you haven't changed my beliefs one iota.

Have a nice day.

[skepticscott]

93. Yes, when I say that homosexuals and blacks should have the same rights

as everyone else, I think I'm right. And I think that anyone who thinks that they shouldn't is not a decent person. I think that the world was not created 6000 years ago, and I think that anyone who believes it was is dead wrong and irrational. And despite your nonsensical claim, no...not just because I say so.

Sorry you don't agree. But I won't waste any more time trying to change your opinion on that, either. Apparently you think that any and all beliefs are of equal validity and deserve equal respect. That's pretty sad. Some of us are a little more discriminating.

[dimbear]

51. There are some rude folks in this sad world. Can you imagine people sitting at lunch counters all

day, refusing to leave? How crude. Or not taking the seat the bus driver recommends. Just not polite at all.

[rug]

62. Why yes, when I read reddit Rosa Parks is the first one to come to mind.

[dimbear]

67. I'm not as up on these things as you, but I believe the FFRF and reddit are two very different

things.

[immoderate]

52. Ultimately, it's best this issue go back to the courts.

People ignore that the theists are the offense here.

The only thing that unites atheists is a lack of belief. And here comes an issue that requires some action.

--imm

[DrewFlorida]

54. If by obnoxious you mean we don't sit quietly while....

the constitutional tenets of, separation of church and state are continually violated by religious zealots attempting to force their religion upon us, you would be right we are obnoxious and will continue to be obnoxious each and every time our religious constitutional rights are violated.

[2ndAmForComputers]

56. You know, use of the word "uppity" is kinda frowned upon these days.

A bigot has to look for alternatives.

[rug]

63. Who is "we"?

Isn't the talking point that no one speaks for atheists?

[xfundy]

57. Maybe the kids will actually read the bibles.

No better way to create an atheist.

[Leontius]

70. They're really pissed off because a lot of students picked up a copy of the Bible

and evidently their anti-Christian propaganda screeds weren't so successful.

[Goblinmonger]

72. No. They're pissed off

because what the school was doing was a violation of the First Amendment. Don't lose sight of that.

[Leontius]

74. I'm not sure if this is an actual violation of the First Amendment it may be

and I have no problem with it being tested in court to find out. They may have a case about some of their material being refused or the court could just say pick one book or pamphlet to offer. Would your preference be a total ban on distribution of any material?

[Goblinmonger]

87. My preference would be no distribution of any literature of a religious nature.

That would include books by Harris et al.

But I realize that isn't the law. So, what I would like in this instance is that the school board stop giving privilege to Christians and if they are going to allow them to hand out things, they need to realize that they have to give the same opportunity to other groups.

And if they/you are going to say that the content of the materials the FFRF wanted to hand out were inappropriate, I have some issues with what is in the bibles they are handing out--the worst isn't that after offering up his daughters to be raped in lieu of the angels sent by god, they drug him and rape him so that they can get pregnant. Yeah, NOTHING in Harris is that bad.

[cleanhippie]

73. Ok, lookie! Yet ANOTHER fairy tale you can convince yourself to believe in.

How's that persecution complex working out for you?

[Leontius]

75. Struck a nerve did I, so sorry, hope it gets better soon. I'll pray for you.

[Ian David]

77. I'll think of you when I masturbate. n/t

[Sherman A1]

81. ........

[Kingofalldems]

82. What a punk post.

[Ian David]

85. What's the difference between that and, "I'll pray for you?"

They're both equally presumptuous and invasive.

[cleanhippie]

90. I agree. Empty platitudes and condescension, dressed up as christian thoughtfullness is indeed BS.

You are referring to leontious' "I'll pray for you" post, right?

[cleanhippie]

88. The only nerve struck seems to be your own. And by praying for me, you mean doing nothing

Of consequence for me at all. Thanks, I really appreciate the empty platitude that you re actually using as sarcasm and condescension. How so very Christian, and expected.

[RedstDem]

83. when athiest want to fight fire with fire

they're considered obnoxious?

[Ian David]

86. Fundies got a butt-hurt. n/t