Do "believers" only believe because they are conforming? [ATHEISTS ONLY]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well this thread is a new low in childishness, efforts to manufacture a false sense of outrage, and general pointlessness.

Already the insults against faith have been just as bad as anything on that other thread. But who cares about that, not me. Just pointing it out for the record.

The truly sad thing about this thread is the only "point" is a transparent desire to annoy people of faith and for retaliation.

If you *really* want to know what religious people think, the dumbest way to go about it is to build walls (are theists Mexico?) against their views so that you can speculate among your uninformed selves.

And what's with the whining that any theist who comes here to tell you what SHE actually thinks is really telling YOU what to think. Unbelievably stupid.

I started a thread on the feedback forum about how we need usernames on this one. I don't know if it's technically possible.

To be fair, don't think OP should have posted this but they have literally used am anti atheists posts verbatim to reply. Here you are all saying its crazy offensive. Over on the other thread I'm being told that groundhog is far more hateful than the original anti atheist poster that said everything this post is based on

I was wondering if anyone would notice...

I didn't notice any of this, only the insults flying back and forth between the sides. Can you point out anything that actually verges on being clever (if we can agree to call parroting clever)? The "atheists only" just makes this a circle jerk imo.

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/240/608392.page

6 posts down on page 17

Here is the precise exchange in the other thread which OP of this thread uncleverly miscontrued:

The atheist poster, upset that someone else stated an opinion about atheists without actually discussing it with atheists first, said:

"If someone was genuinely interested in what motivated another group of people they would be interested in getting that group's perspective. If they just wanted to talk sh $% and feel superior about themselves then they'd probably take this proposed path."

And the response to the upset atheist was as follows:


"Why do you think religious people would necessarily want, need or value the input from atheists concerning what the atheists believe motivates atheists? By definition, religious people and atheists have fundamentally divergent views of how the universe works. Why in your opinion do you feel entitled to inject your input into a discussion by people who do not see the world as you do? One thing for sure is that atheists are pretty much as dogmatic in their world view as the most religious of believers. No one calls themselves an atheist unless they have crossed that line.

The mere fact that you don't think other people are entitled to have their own opinions without your input (thanks anyway) is interesting. I'm not allowed to formulate my opinion about something unless you tell me what to think first? Is that how it goes?"

------

So--is there anything in the above response to the atheist remotely suggesting that the atheist was disentitled to post whatever he/she wanted to post in the other thread. No. Nothing remotely suggesting that the atheist's absolute right to post in the other thread should in any way be censored. All the other poster was pointing out to the upset atheist was that there was no obligation on the part of anyone to pay attention to whatever the upset atheist wanted to say as a precondition of forming an opinion about atheists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here.

Wow - so many respectful theists popped on here to show that they care. I'm touched. Looks like the unhinged theist (who still somehow can't reply properly?!) chimed in too. So kind.

Just can't stay away, huh? Why are you so drawn to atheists? Makes you start to wonder....

So, OP, where in that other thread that you've deliberately miscontrued to troll theists with this thread, do you see anyone telling atheists that they aren't welcome to participate in that other thread discussion? All the quotes say is that whoever posted them isn't obligated to take into consideration someone else's opinion as a prior condition to formulating their own opinion. In the other thread, an atheist got very upset that someone expressed an opinion about atheists without bothering to listen to the upset atheist's opinion first. The response to the atheist was that there is no obligation to listen to his point of view before someone else forms their own point of view. No one told anyone that they couldn't participate in the thread and fully express their opinions. The atheist was upset, and you are very upset, at being told that someone thinks your opinions aren't that important or necessary. But no one told you that you couldn't express them.

Please refer to page 17. Specifically this exchange between the unhinged theist and the diplomatic atheist:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are atheists even involved in a discussion like this at all? If a bunch of religious people want to talk about what motivates atheists, why should atheists even care? After all, all atheist means is someone who doesn't believe in god. If religious people want to speculate about your motivations, what is the point in trying to prove them wrong?

It's because you think religious people are wrong and stupid and you want to prove that they're wrong and you're smarter than they are.

If you don't want to believe in god, then don't believe in god. Do you go on message boards to justify why you don't believe in UFOs and the Easter Bunny? If not, why not? Those don't really exist either, but lots of people believe in them.

If someone was genuinely interested in what motivated another group of people they would be interested in getting that group's perspective. If they just wanted to talk sh $% and feel superior about themselves then they'd probably take this proposed path.

Why do you think religious people would necessarily want, need or value the input from atheists concerning what the atheists believe motivates atheists? By definition, religious people and atheists have fundamentally divergent views of how the universe works. Why in your opinion do you feel entitled to inject your input into a discussion by people who do not see the world as you do? One thing for sure is that atheists are pretty much as dogmatic in their world view as the most religious of believers. No one calls themselves an atheist unless they have crossed that line.

The mere fact that you don't think other people are entitled to have their own opinions without your input (thanks anyway) is interesting. I'm not allowed to formulate my opinion about something unless you tell me what to think first? Is that how it goes?

I never said you weren't entitled to an opinion. I said that someone truly interested in knowing how another person ticked would want to get feedback from that person. Of course they can have an opinion or hypothesis without having that conversation but IMO the more informed I am the better my opinion is.

I like to think we're all humans and there's common ground for all of us. I think it's really sad and kind of hurtful that you seem to think my thoughts have no value to you simply because I don't believe in god. I am not really that dogmatic actually. I just don't believe, I didn't choose to not believe I just don't.

I don't think you can expect to have some private religious person sanctuary to discuss atheists on DCUM though, at least not while threads still show up in recent topics. I felt entitled to add my opinion because it's a public Anonymous message board and I do actually have the ability to give my perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well this thread is a new low in childishness, efforts to manufacture a false sense of outrage, and general pointlessness.

Already the insults against faith have been just as bad as anything on that other thread. But who cares about that, not me. Just pointing it out for the record.

The truly sad thing about this thread is the only "point" is a transparent desire to annoy people of faith and for retaliation.

If you *really* want to know what religious people think, the dumbest way to go about it is to build walls (are theists Mexico?) against their views so that you can speculate among your uninformed selves.

And what's with the whining that any theist who comes here to tell you what SHE actually thinks is really telling YOU what to think. Unbelievably stupid.

I started a thread on the feedback forum about how we need usernames on this one. I don't know if it's technically possible.

To be fair, don't think OP should have posted this but they have literally used am anti atheists posts verbatim to reply. Here you are all saying its crazy offensive. Over on the other thread I'm being told that groundhog is far more hateful than the original anti atheist poster that said everything this post is based on

On that other thread, an atheist specifically made the claim that his/her views were required to be listened to before someone else could formulate their own opinion. That atheist wasn't simply saying "Hey I disagree with you, and here's my opinion." In that thread, and if you read the quotes from it carefully, you will clearly see that no one told that atheist that they had no right to participate in the discussion. That atheist was saying that no one is permitted to disagree with that atheist, or rather to formulate an opinion disagreeable to that atheist, without hearing the atheist's opinion first. Because, you know, we're not allowed to formulate our own opinions based on whatever we choose as inputs to those opinions.

All those quotes are saying is that whoever posted them has the perfect right to formulate their own opinion without mandatory consideration of someone else's opinion. We all have that right, always. Nothing in those quotes suggests that the disagreeable atheist is not entitle to also state his/her own opinion based on whatever they want to base it on. Nothing in those quotes suggested any attempt to exclude the belligerent atheist entirely from the discussion, or from posting whatever they want to post.

Completely different from the way the OP in this thread attempted to misrepresent it.

This is completely inaccurate and I'd like you to specify what posts you feel contribute to this imaginary narrative.

-17:19 from the other thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well this thread is a new low in childishness, efforts to manufacture a false sense of outrage, and general pointlessness.

Already the insults against faith have been just as bad as anything on that other thread. But who cares about that, not me. Just pointing it out for the record.

The truly sad thing about this thread is the only "point" is a transparent desire to annoy people of faith and for retaliation.

If you *really* want to know what religious people think, the dumbest way to go about it is to build walls (are theists Mexico?) against their views so that you can speculate among your uninformed selves.

And what's with the whining that any theist who comes here to tell you what SHE actually thinks is really telling YOU what to think. Unbelievably stupid.

I started a thread on the feedback forum about how we need usernames on this one. I don't know if it's technically possible.

To be fair, don't think OP should have posted this but they have literally used am anti atheists posts verbatim to reply. Here you are all saying its crazy offensive. Over on the other thread I'm being told that groundhog is far more hateful than the original anti atheist poster that said everything this post is based on

I was wondering if anyone would notice...

I didn't notice any of this, only the insults flying back and forth between the sides. Can you point out anything that actually verges on being clever (if we can agree to call parroting clever)? The "atheists only" just makes this a circle jerk imo.

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/240/608392.page

6 posts down on page 17

Here is the precise exchange in the other thread which OP of this thread uncleverly miscontrued:

The atheist poster, upset that someone else stated an opinion about atheists without actually discussing it with atheists first, said:

"If someone was genuinely interested in what motivated another group of people they would be interested in getting that group's perspective. If they just wanted to talk sh $% and feel superior about themselves then they'd probably take this proposed path."

And the response to the upset atheist was as follows:


"Why do you think religious people would necessarily want, need or value the input from atheists concerning what the atheists believe motivates atheists? By definition, religious people and atheists have fundamentally divergent views of how the universe works. Why in your opinion do you feel entitled to inject your input into a discussion by people who do not see the world as you do? One thing for sure is that atheists are pretty much as dogmatic in their world view as the most religious of believers. No one calls themselves an atheist unless they have crossed that line.

The mere fact that you don't think other people are entitled to have their own opinions without your input (thanks anyway) is interesting. I'm not allowed to formulate my opinion about something unless you tell me what to think first? Is that how it goes?"

------

So--is there anything in the above response to the atheist remotely suggesting that the atheist was disentitled to post whatever he/she wanted to post in the other thread. No. Nothing remotely suggesting that the atheist's absolute right to post in the other thread should in any way be censored. All the other poster was pointing out to the upset atheist was that there was no obligation on the part of anyone to pay attention to whatever the upset atheist wanted to say as a precondition of forming an opinion about atheists.

I am the atheist in those quotes, you intentionally left out the quote I wad originally responding to of course. The one which asked why atheists were even commenting on the post at all.

[Anonymous]

^ clarification - I don't think diplomatic atheist made the initial reply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ clarification - I don't think diplomatic atheist made the initial reply.

Or maybe she did?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ clarification - I don't think diplomatic atheist made the initial reply.

Or maybe she did?

I did

[Anonymous]

"I am the atheist in those quotes, you intentionally left out the quote I wad originally responding to of course. The one which asked why atheists were even commenting on the post at all."

That's right. A perfectly legitimate question which some atheist or other (I don't know if it was you, who can tell?) responded with snark, to the effect that the reason atheists supposedly want to participate in such discussion is specifically to tell other people what should and should not inform those others' opinions; and that if those others choose not to entertain an atheists' viewpoints, that those others' opinions are illegitimate.

Well, sorry to break the news to you, but no one needs to hear your opinion about anything before formulating their own opinion. It's optional. If a person thinks they kind of know how atheists think based on input in the past from many different other atheists, then perhaps they really DON'T need your particular point of view. But you know what? That's not YOUR call to make. You get to state your own opinions. You don't get to impose conditions on the formulation of someone else's opinion.

So, the only reason for atheists to participate in the discussion is not to state their own opinion as part of the discussion, but to tell other people why the atheist thinks the other person is wrong.

And that's what motivated the current thread. It's not really a mockery thread. This thread is a straight ahead admission of how most atheists view the world: "We don't want to listen to what other people think. We've already decided. Don't post here."

Look up and down all of the posts in that other thread, of which this one is supposed to be a mocking, and show me anywhere that anyone stated that an atheist couldn't post whatever they wanted to post, anywhere.

What burns the OP up is simply knowing that they have no right to force their opinions down anyone else's throat.

Well, they don't.

Nor do you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well this thread is a new low in childishness, efforts to manufacture a false sense of outrage, and general pointlessness.

Already the insults against faith have been just as bad as anything on that other thread. But who cares about that, not me. Just pointing it out for the record.

The truly sad thing about this thread is the only "point" is a transparent desire to annoy people of faith and for retaliation.

If you *really* want to know what religious people think, the dumbest way to go about it is to build walls (are theists Mexico?) against their views so that you can speculate among your uninformed selves.

And what's with the whining that any theist who comes here to tell you what SHE actually thinks is really telling YOU what to think. Unbelievably stupid.

I started a thread on the feedback forum about how we need usernames on this one. I don't know if it's technically possible.

To be fair, don't think OP should have posted this but they have literally used am anti atheists posts verbatim to reply. Here you are all saying its crazy offensive. Over on the other thread I'm being told that groundhog is far more hateful than the original anti atheist poster that said everything this post is based on

On that other thread, an atheist specifically made the claim that his/her views were required to be listened to before someone else could formulate their own opinion. That atheist wasn't simply saying "Hey I disagree with you, and here's my opinion." In that thread, and if you read the quotes from it carefully, you will clearly see that no one told that atheist that they had no right to participate in the discussion. That atheist was saying that no one is permitted to disagree with that atheist, or rather to formulate an opinion disagreeable to that atheist, without hearing the atheist's opinion first. Because, you know, we're not allowed to formulate our own opinions based on whatever we choose as inputs to those opinions.

All those quotes are saying is that whoever posted them has the perfect right to formulate their own opinion without mandatory consideration of someone else's opinion. We all have that right, always. Nothing in those quotes suggests that the disagreeable atheist is not entitle to also state his/her own opinion based on whatever they want to base it on. Nothing in those quotes suggested any attempt to exclude the belligerent atheist entirely from the discussion, or from posting whatever they want to post.

Completely different from the way the OP in this thread attempted to misrepresent it.

This is completely inaccurate and I'd like you to specify what posts you feel contribute to this imaginary narrative.

-17:19 from the other thread

Where do you see anything in which any poster in that other thread states that atheists have no right to post their opinions in that other thread?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here.

Wow - so many respectful theists popped on here to show that they care. I'm touched. Looks like the unhinged theist (who still somehow can't reply properly?!) chimed in too. So kind.

Just can't stay away, huh? Why are you so drawn to atheists? Makes you start to wonder....

So, OP, where in that other thread that you've deliberately miscontrued to troll theists with this thread, do you see anyone telling atheists that they aren't welcome to participate in that other thread discussion? All the quotes say is that whoever posted them isn't obligated to take into consideration someone else's opinion as a prior condition to formulating their own opinion. In the other thread, an atheist got very upset that someone expressed an opinion about atheists without bothering to listen to the upset atheist's opinion first. The response to the atheist was that there is no obligation to listen to his point of view before someone else forms their own point of view. No one told anyone that they couldn't participate in the thread and fully express their opinions. The atheist was upset, and you are very upset, at being told that someone thinks your opinions aren't that important or necessary. But no one told you that you couldn't express them.

Please refer to page 17. Specifically this exchange between the unhinged theist and the diplomatic atheist:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are atheists even involved in a discussion like this at all? If a bunch of religious people want to talk about what motivates atheists, why should atheists even care? After all, all atheist means is someone who doesn't believe in god. If religious people want to speculate about your motivations, what is the point in trying to prove them wrong?

It's because you think religious people are wrong and stupid and you want to prove that they're wrong and you're smarter than they are.

If you don't want to believe in god, then don't believe in god. Do you go on message boards to justify why you don't believe in UFOs and the Easter Bunny? If not, why not? Those don't really exist either, but lots of people believe in them.

If someone was genuinely interested in what motivated another group of people they would be interested in getting that group's perspective. If they just wanted to talk sh $% and feel superior about themselves then they'd probably take this proposed path.

Why do you think religious people would necessarily want, need or value the input from atheists concerning what the atheists believe motivates atheists? By definition, religious people and atheists have fundamentally divergent views of how the universe works. Why in your opinion do you feel entitled to inject your input into a discussion by people who do not see the world as you do? One thing for sure is that atheists are pretty much as dogmatic in their world view as the most religious of believers. No one calls themselves an atheist unless they have crossed that line.

The mere fact that you don't think other people are entitled to have their own opinions without your input (thanks anyway) is interesting. I'm not allowed to formulate my opinion about something unless you tell me what to think first? Is that how it goes?

I never said you weren't entitled to an opinion. I said that someone truly interested in knowing how another person ticked would want to get feedback from that person. Of course they can have an opinion or hypothesis without having that conversation but IMO the more informed I am the better my opinion is.

I like to think we're all humans and there's common ground for all of us. I think it's really sad and kind of hurtful that you seem to think my thoughts have no value to you simply because I don't believe in god. I am not really that dogmatic actually. I just don't believe, I didn't choose to not believe I just don't.

I don't think you can expect to have some private religious person sanctuary to discuss atheists on DCUM though, at least not while threads still show up in recent topics. I felt entitled to add my opinion because it's a public Anonymous message board and I do actually have the ability to give my perspective.

The unhinged theist seems to be discouraging atheists from posting - on a thread about atheists - with the bolded statements above. That's how I read it. If that's not accurate maybe you can explain what he really meant. Feel free to use all caps if you think it will help your message.

OP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"I am the atheist in those quotes, you intentionally left out the quote I wad originally responding to of course. The one which asked why atheists were even commenting on the post at all."

That's right. A perfectly legitimate question which some atheist or other (I don't know if it was you, who can tell?) responded with snark, to the effect that the reason atheists supposedly want to participate in such discussion is specifically to tell other people what should and should not inform those others' opinions; and that if those others choose not to entertain an atheists' viewpoints, that those others' opinions are illegitimate.

Well, sorry to break the news to you, but no one needs to hear your opinion about anything before formulating their own opinion. It's optional. If a person thinks they kind of know how atheists think based on input in the past from many different other atheists, then perhaps they really DON'T need your particular point of view. But you know what? That's not YOUR call to make. You get to state your own opinions. You don't get to impose conditions on the formulation of someone else's opinion.

So, the only reason for atheists to participate in the discussion is not to state their own opinion as part of the discussion, but to tell other people why the atheist thinks the other person is wrong.

And that's what motivated the current thread. It's not really a mockery thread. This thread is a straight ahead admission of how most atheists view the world: "We don't want to listen to what other people think. We've already decided. Don't post here."

Look up and down all of the posts in that other thread, of which this one is supposed to be a mocking, and show me anywhere that anyone stated that an atheist couldn't post whatever they wanted to post, anywhere.

What burns the OP up is simply knowing that they have no right to force their opinions down anyone else's throat.

Well, they don't.

Nor do you.

I responded to this as well of course:

I never said you weren't entitled to an opinion. I said that someone truly interested in knowing how another person ticked would want to get feedback from that person. Of course they can have an opinion or hypothesis without having that conversation but IMO the more informed I am the better my opinion is.

You're in the minority among religious people I believe with this rambling nonsense so I'm not going to use this exchange to inform my view of religious people.

But I have to admit that much more than this poster's craziness, I am troubled by the silence of the posters I was discussing this with yesterday calling on me to criticize my fellow atheists (which I did multiple times when I thought they were out of line) and yet virtually no one has tried to get this looney tunes under control. What is that?

[Anonymous]

Hypocrisy

[Anonymous]

"I never said you weren't entitled to an opinion. I said that someone truly interested in knowing how another person ticked would want to get feedback from that person."

Well, in the other thread, you used snark and profanity and implied that someone else's opinion just couldn't be valid without listening to your opinion first. Which is obviously a false statement on your part. If in your world no one else's opinion is worthy of consideration unless they listen to you first before forming it, then you live in a peculiarly self-centered world.

In fact the world you live in is so self-centered that you actually think a very generalized discussion about what motivates "atheists" requires anyone to seek input from YOU, specifically. The other thread wasn't about YOU, personally. If a thread is about what YOU, personally, believe, then yes--it probably makes sense to hear from YOU. But that's not what the other thread was about.

Even when it comes to YOU personally--if that were the subject being discussed, which it's not--it's up to ME, not YOU, to decide if I do or don't need your "feedback" to form whatever opinion I want to form about you. It's MY opinion, not YOUR opinion. You don't have to agree with it, and I wouldn't expect you would, but you do NOT get to tell me who I need to listen to before formulating it.




"Of course they can have an opinion or hypothesis without having that conversation but IMO the more informed I am the better my opinion is."

Right, you walked back your original belligerent nasty statement saying otherwise. Apparently no one noticed that you admitted you were wrong in the first place. I get to choose what underlies my opinions, you get to do the same. No one told you you couldn't state your opinion in the other thread, and you did state it. You think my opinion about atheists in general would be a better informed one if I listend to YOUR opinion, specifically. I disagree that YOUR specific opinion is necessary for me to form general conclusions. There are plenty of other atheists and theists posting and their opinions are readily available so I do not need to wait until I have heard from every single individual to be able to form my opinion.

"I like to think we're all humans and there's common ground for all of us. I think it's really sad and kind of hurtful that you seem to think my thoughts have no value to you simply because I don't believe in god. I am not really that dogmatic actually. I just don't believe, I didn't choose to not believe I just don't."

You can't read. Or maybe you can't think. I didn't say your thoughts have no value. I said I don't need to have the benefit of a particular person's thoughts BEFORE being able to formulate my own opinion about something. There is nothing special about you or your opinion. It has absolutely nothing to do with your non belief in god. It has to do with your apparent megalomaniacal insistence that your specific personal opinion is necessary before I can form mine. It's not. You're not the only atheist in the world. You're not the first one who's ever posted on the internet.

"I don't think you can expect to have some private religious person sanctuary to discuss atheists on DCUM though, at least not while threads still show up in recent topics. I felt entitled to add my opinion because it's a public Anonymous message board and I do actually have the ability to give my perspective."

Once again, I never said you can't post whatever you want to post. I never said there should be a private conversation. The part where you got it completely wrong is the notion that I have to read your perspective before deciding what my own is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I am the atheist in those quotes, you intentionally left out the quote I wad originally responding to of course. The one which asked why atheists were even commenting on the post at all."

That's right. A perfectly legitimate question which some atheist or other (I don't know if it was you, who can tell?) responded with snark, to the effect that the reason atheists supposedly want to participate in such discussion is specifically to tell other people what should and should not inform those others' opinions; and that if those others choose not to entertain an atheists' viewpoints, that those others' opinions are illegitimate.

Well, sorry to break the news to you, but no one needs to hear your opinion about anything before formulating their own opinion. It's optional. If a person thinks they kind of know how atheists think based on input in the past from many different other atheists, then perhaps they really DON'T need your particular point of view. But you know what? That's not YOUR call to make. You get to state your own opinions. You don't get to impose conditions on the formulation of someone else's opinion.

So, the only reason for atheists to participate in the discussion is not to state their own opinion as part of the discussion, but to tell other people why the atheist thinks the other person is wrong.

And that's what motivated the current thread. It's not really a mockery thread. This thread is a straight ahead admission of how most atheists view the world: "We don't want to listen to what other people think. We've already decided. Don't post here."

Look up and down all of the posts in that other thread, of which this one is supposed to be a mocking, and show me anywhere that anyone stated that an atheist couldn't post whatever they wanted to post, anywhere.

What burns the OP up is simply knowing that they have no right to force their opinions down anyone else's throat.

Well, they don't.

Nor do you.

I responded to this as well of course:

I never said you weren't entitled to an opinion. I said that someone truly interested in knowing how another person ticked would want to get feedback from that person. Of course they can have an opinion or hypothesis without having that conversation but IMO the more informed I am the better my opinion is.

You're in the minority among religious people I believe with this rambling nonsense so I'm not going to use this exchange to inform my view of religious people.

But I have to admit that much more than this poster's craziness, I am troubled by the silence of the posters I was discussing this with yesterday calling on me to criticize my fellow atheists (which I did multiple times when I thought they were out of line) and yet virtually no one has tried to get this looney tunes under control. What is that?

What even makes you think I'm religious? As an atheist, do you think anyone who disagrees with you self-identifies as religious? Are you serious?

[Anonymous]

"But I have to admit that much more than this poster's craziness, I am troubled by the silence of the posters I was discussing this with yesterday calling on me to criticize my fellow atheists (which I did multiple times when I thought they were out of line) and yet virtually no one has tried to get this looney tunes under control. What is that?"

"craziness," "looney tunes"--why don't you learn how to think? What's with the constant resort to silly name calling?