• Stephen Fry hits back at accusations of Islamophobia
    344 replies, posted
[QUOTE=daschnek;42058829]This is a valid point, and instead of rating dumb more people should read about [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism"]this[/URL] and [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism"]this[/URL] before making stupid assumptions about what one can/cannot believe. Some people, like me, do find this debate truly meaningless. If there is or isn't a "God", whatever a god may be, of what is the use for it in human life, society, or the endeavor of science?[/QUOTE] Except by posting here you've just proven you do find it worth your time to partake in the discussion therefore it isn't meaningless to you. [editline]3rd September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Lachz0r;42058855]well if we're still talking about the abrahamic god he didn't really seem to care about free will when he flooded the world. if we're just talking about a god in general then i don't see the point in worshiping something that will never have any effect on your life because it won't ever do anything due to respecting free will. and also, where does disease and famine factor into this? i'm sure removing that stuff doesn't mess with anyones free will at all[/QUOTE] Also I'd gladly give up some free will if it meant no bad things would ever happen. A god could allow us the free will to do good, but restrict our free will if we intend to do bad. Right.
[QUOTE=daschnek;42058829]This is a valid point, and instead of rating dumb more people should read about [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism"]this[/URL] and [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism"]this[/URL] before making stupid assumptions about what one can/cannot believe. Some people, like me, do find this debate truly meaningless. If there is or isn't a "God", whatever a god may be, of what is the use for it in human life, society, or the endeavor of science?[/QUOTE] well as long as religion has such a profound effect on people and society at large it will remain a meaningful debate
[QUOTE=mobrockers;42058862]Except by posting here you've just proven you do find it worth your time to partake in the discussion therefore it isn't meaningless to you.[/QUOTE] I wanted to partake in the discussion to clear up a lot of the misconceptions that seem to be floating around, especially in regards to atheism, theism, agnosticism, combinations of the three, or just not having a position. I have no steak on this grill, myself. The discussion of what god is/means is still no more meaningful to me than it was before I posted.
[QUOTE=Bomimo;42055065]Is your world view seriously this limited, that you credit a random youtuber for this train of thought instead of the actual originators? Stop arguing if you're going to be this unaware and loud.[/QUOTE] Credit a random youtuber? Read my post again, I said he perpetuated it, I never said he was the originator. it's a shit argument and a desperate attempt to polarise a debate because people get upset when they try to grill people on their beliefs, and they are answered with agnosticism
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;42058876]well as long as religion has such a profound effect on people and society at large it will remain a meaningful debate[/QUOTE] Well, you're right in that religion has a profound effect on people and society- but the actual subject matter of the big 3 monotheisms- God- has never been demonstrated to have an effect on anything. It's all this talk about God, this belief, that makes it an issue. If more people would ask first what a God even is, or if the idea is useful, before jumping to conclusions we'd all be far better off.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42058751]Well he's letting people act through their own free will, whether it is their will to oppress others' wills or not. Even those who are oppressed still have free will, they simply can't express it fully.[/QUOTE] A being that is omniscient doesn't allow for free will. At that point, things are pre determined because a plot can be seen for everyone by the omniscient. It doesn't much matter if he interferes or not, his existence denies free will. Not to mention all the numerous aspects of current life on earth where many people are never given a shot at free will. Would a benevolent god really let all that go on? I've heard the analogy of a parent allowing their children to make mistakes, but a benevolent parent wouldn't allow their child to murder in the sake of education, let alone murder innocents. Yet, it happens. The abrahamic god is impossible in our universe
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42058611]wouldn't such a god intervene when someone is imposing their will on another, then? how could a god respect free will, and at the same time let it be destroyed constantly?[/QUOTE] You are conflating two different types/levels of 'free will'. The free will from Abrahamic religions extends to humanities actions not being controlled by God (the enormous amount of interventions aside), the other free will is your typical "do as you will free from any involuntary control"
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;42059073]You are conflating two different types/levels of 'free will'. The free will from Abrahamic religions extends to humanities actions not being controlled by God (the enormous amount of interventions aside), the other free will is your typical "do as you will free from any involuntary control"[/QUOTE] In a sense the semantics of that is both important and not. Due to the abrahamic god having certain qualities that he can't be free of, there are certain problems that come with that. An abrahamic god is benevolent, so he does not enjoy or tolerate death of humans(which is a straight up divorce of views between god and the bible) but would try to intervene. He's all powerful so he can do it, he's all knowing so he knows how to do it. Yet any intervention of which many people see in regular life(prayer etc) is a direct violation of free will. God not stopping the murder of innocents who never get to have free will is little different then being the oppressor himself when he has all the power to change it.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;42053682]entirely untrue this "there's no such thing as true agnosticism" is a load of shit perpetuated by that moron the amazing atheist agnosticism is the lack of a belief, this leaning shit is a load of crap[/QUOTE] If you don't have a belief in god, then you're an atheist, that's how it works. It's nothing to do with "leaning" or "polarising", it's just what they are.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42059071]A being that is omniscient doesn't allow for free will. At that point, things are pre determined because a plot can be seen for everyone by the omniscient. It doesn't much matter if he interferes or not, his existence denies free will. Not to mention all the numerous aspects of current life on earth where many people are never given a shot at free will. Would a benevolent god really let all that go on? I've heard the analogy of a parent allowing their children to make mistakes, but a benevolent parent wouldn't allow their child to murder in the sake of education, let alone murder innocents. Yet, it happens. The abrahamic god is impossible in our universe[/QUOTE] In what way could an omniscient being affect with free will? Also it does matter if said being interferes, because if they don't, then they are not affecting free will. Omniscience just means you know what people will choose because they ultimately will choose something. You're claiming that without interfering he somehow affects free will regardless without stating why. People with free will don't ultimately affect other people's free will, they just affect the expression of it. His respect for free will isn't with the ultimate goal of hoping people learn from their mistakes either, in fact it's so that we choose on our own accord whether we wish to follow him or not. Of course that's not to say we're perfectly objective in our decisions, there are lots of other factors affecting us(for some that's even more evident than others), but that doesn't mean that we're totally overcome by our emotions and instincts. As for so called natural "evil", a lot of the deaths associated with it can actually be traced back to the free actions of others, such as cheaply built housing collapsing in an earthquake. Not to mention natural disasters are the result of the physical laws allowing this planet to continue to support life.
you know you've got a crappy god when you have to make excuses like cheaply built housing to explain why he never does anything
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42060492]In what way could an omniscient being affect with free will? Also it does matter if said being interferes, because if they don't, then they are not affecting free will. Omniscience just means you know what people will choose because they ultimately will choose something. You're claiming that without interfering he somehow affects free will regardless without stating why.[/QUOTE] Half of this is barely coherent. What am I supposed to take from this? How can free will exist if a being knows every choice, every aspect of every decision you could ever make at any time, doesn't matter because you'd only ever choose one. How is that free will by definition? [QUOTE]People with free will don't ultimately affect other people's free will, they just affect the expression of it. His respect for free will isn't with the ultimate goal of hoping people learn from their mistakes either, in fact it's so that we choose on our own accord whether we wish to follow him or not. Of course that's not to say we're perfectly objective in our decisions, there are lots of other factors affecting us(for some that's even more evident than others), but that doesn't mean that we're totally overcome by our emotions and instincts. [/QUOTE] Uh, you're actually dumb if you think people don't infringe on other peoples free will. Where did you drag emotions and instincts into this? Do you know what we're discussing? Someone smashing your head open is literally "affecting other people's free will". [QUOTE]As for so called natural "evil", a lot of the deaths associated with it can actually be traced back to the free actions of others, such as cheaply built housing collapsing in an earthquake. Not to mention natural disasters are the result of the physical laws allowing this planet to continue to support life.[/QUOTE] So god knows this will happen, knows that the earthquakes coming, knows the houses are built badly, but loves us enough to let us die through someone elses misdeeds well damn son I don't WANT to believe in your god whether he was real or not. Are you really going to have another religious debate where you just refuse to actually do anything but post your opinions over and over again as if they had the weight you really feel they do and disregard everyones discussions and when you can't pass off a turd as a turd you'll leave again?
if something can know everything that has happened and will happen for all of time then free will is an illusion because that would mean everything is set in stone and you aren't realling choosing to do anything. it's a stupid thing to even argue about god just doesn't exist far out
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42060870]Half of this is barely coherent. What am I supposed to take from this? How can free will exist if a being knows every choice, every aspect of every decision you could ever make at any time, doesn't matter because you'd only ever choose one. How is that free will by definition?[/QUOTE] What I'm saying is you have no actual reason to believe that a being who knows the future somehow affects free will. The fact is you eventually make a decision, how does a being that knows what that decision will be infringe on you freely making that decision? [QUOTE]Uh, you're actually dumb if you think people don't infringe on other peoples free will. Where did you drag emotions and instincts into this? Do you know what we're discussing? Someone smashing your head open is literally "affecting other people's free will".[/QUOTE] We're discussing free will and its expression as opposed to control. Controlling free will would involve actively steering someone's decisions for them, like actually deciding what ideas they think of. Controlling expression of free will would involve actively deciding what thoughts people can act on. [QUOTE]So god knows this will happen, knows that the earthquakes coming, knows the houses are built badly, but loves us enough to let us die through someone elses misdeeds well damn son I don't WANT to believe in your god whether he was real or not.[/QUOTE] Just because God exists doesn't mean that we then should be free of all responsibility, inoccent people suffer due to other's mistakes, that's just a fact of life.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42058751]Well he's letting people act through their own free will, whether it is their will to oppress others' wills or not. Even those who are oppressed still have free will, they simply can't express it fully.[/QUOTE] then that god doesn't "respect free will", they respect isolationism. for an omnipotent being that supposedly loves the world, isolationism seems like a very negative trait to possess.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42061001]What I'm saying is you have no actual reason to believe that a being who knows the future somehow affects free will. The fact is you eventually make a decision, how does a being that knows what that decision will be infringe on you freely making that decision?[/QUOTE] oh right you have more reason to believe in a god then I do to not, you're going to go back to that. okay. [QUOTE]We're discussing free will and its expression as opposed to control. Controlling free will would involve actively steering someone's decisions for them, like actually deciding what ideas they think of. Controlling expression of free will would involve actively deciding what thoughts people can act on.[/QUOTE] No. That's not true and show's you don't understand the simple aspects of social manipulation and coercion let alone anything about violence. Controlling expression of free will is more gods territory, we're talking about people who infringe on the rights of others to their own will. This happens. This isn't okay in a world with a benevolent god. [QUOTE]Just because God exists doesn't mean that we then should be free of all responsibility, inoccent people suffer due to other's mistakes, that's just a fact of life.[/QUOTE] Uh, if God is certain things, has certain qualities, and those qualities contradict what we deal with in real life, like for example that he is all powerful and benevolent then the actions of those unto those who don't have free will able to express(You know, like babies, quadraplegics, etc) would certainly be unacceptable in the world. God knows people will be born entirely to die before they even make it from the crib. God knows he could fix this. God doesn't. Why do you want to believe in this guy? No, we're not talking about responsibility of people and god abolishing that. we're talking about how the very concept of a god who fits that criteria existing in a world with things that are contradictory to his criteria makes the very idea of him being important at all ridiculous. You started this argument with a post saying [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42058527]What about a god that respects free will?[/QUOTE] This is why we don't think that there is a god that respects free will. Also, my point was and is in a lot of ways that a god that allows these things to happen and can, and doesn't stop them every minute of every day, and is called "good" is utterly horseshit and untrue in every way possible. and let's not even approach the idea of free will from a scientific perspective(though, you'll discount that as quick as possible) which shows in quite a few ways that there is less to free will than we've grown up as a species thinking.
when it comes to the abrahamic god how can you say he respects free will when he murdered all the first born children of egypt because the pharoah wouldn't let the jews free? or when he flooded the entire world because they wouldn't obey his laws? or how his entire scripture is based around 'do this and that or suffer for eternity'?
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;42061133]when it comes to the abrahamic god how can you say he respects free will when he murdered all the first born children of egypt because the pharoah wouldn't let the jews free? or when he flooded the entire world because they wouldn't obey his laws? or how his entire scripture is based around 'do this and that or suffer for eternity'?[/QUOTE] it was a [B][I][U]metaphor[/U][/I][/B] :downs: ^sarcasm.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42061079]oh right you have more reason to believe in a god then I do to not, you're going to go back to that. okay. [/QUOTE] That's not what I'm saying and you still haven't answered my question. What logical thought process leads you to believe that an omnipresent being affects free will just by knowing the future? [QUOTE]No. That's not true and show's you don't understand the simple aspects of social manipulation and coercion let alone anything about violence. Controlling expression of free will is more gods territory, we're talking about people who infringe on the rights of others to their own will. This happens. This isn't okay in a world with a benevolent god. [/QUOTE] This is why I brought up instincts and emotions, we're hardly perfectly objective and that affects our decisions. In the end though it's our choice to behave and think in certain ways, even if we have been emotionally manipulated to do so. [QUOTE]Uh, if God is certain things, has certain qualities, and those qualities contradict what we deal with in real life, like for example that he is all powerful and benevolent then the actions of those unto those who don't have free will able to express(You know, like babies, quadraplegics, etc) would certainly be unacceptable in the world. God knows people will be born entirely to die before they even make it from the crib. God knows he could fix this. God doesn't.[/QUOTE] Well those actions are unacceptable to God, but they are still carried out under the free will of a person. So either God could infringe on free will, or just come in like an over protective parent and fix our mistakes. In one case, we have no free will and in the other, morality become pointless to us because there are no negative consequences to anything. Instead, God respects our free will and doesn't coddle us in our every action, instead he ultimately judges us and administer justice in that respect. [QUOTE]Why do you want to believe in this guy? No, we're not talking about responsibility of people and god abolishing that. we're talking about how the very concept of a god who fits that criteria existing in a world with things that are contradictory to his criteria makes the very idea of him being important at all ridiculous. You started this argument with a post saying [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12]What about a god that respects free will?[/QUOTE] This is why we don't think that there is a god that respects free will.[/QUOTE] But letting people hold free will without any discrimination on whether he personally disagrees with that will or not sounds like the ultimate expression of respect for free will. [QUOTE]Also, my point was and is in a lot of ways that a god that allows these things to happen and can, and doesn't stop them every minute of every day, and is called "good" is utterly horseshit and untrue in every way possible.[/QUOTE] Allowing people to freely choose where they stand and then judging them on said stance is not just or good? [QUOTE]and let's not even approach the idea of free will from a scientific perspective which shows in quite a few ways that there is less to free will than we've grown up as a species thinking.[/QUOTE] Well, I'm responding from a Christian perspective and certain aspects of that perspective are what you're arguing against, so the facets of a naturalistic view on a person's mind aren't relevant.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42061259]That's not what I'm saying and you still haven't answered my question. What logical thought process leads you to believe that an omnipresent being affects free will just by knowing the future?[/QUOTE] If you claim free will, that means there's some variable choice to be made. If there is a being that knows matter of factly the outcome of every scenario ever, then doesn't that mean free will is just an illusion or are you not going to state why the claim to free will is more valid? [QUOTE]This is why I brought up instincts and emotions, we're hardly perfectly objective and that affects our decisions. In the end though it's our choice to behave and think in certain ways, even if we have been emotionally manipulated to do so.[/QUOTE] But not all beings have the choice to even make. [QUOTE]Well those actions are unacceptable to God, but they are still carried out under the free will of a person. So either God could infringe on free will, or just come in like an over protective parent and fix our mistakes. In one case, we have no free will and in the other, morality become pointless to us because there are no negative consequences to anything. Instead, God respects our free will and doesn't coddle us in our every action, instead he ultimately judges us and administer justice in that respect.[/QUOTE] So the murder of unborn innocents is more acceptable to god than humanity not facing a skinned knee and learning from it? Nope we have vastly different values to life then. You have none. [QUOTE]But letting people hold free will without any discrimination on whether he personally disagrees with that will or not sounds like the ultimate expression of respect for free will.[/QUOTE] But how does he do that when biblically he claims 10 million lives over the course of the book? [QUOTE]Allowing people to freely choose where they stand and then judging them on said stance is not just or good?[/QUOTE] No you're not listening. If you have a being who can change anything, and do anything, and knows everything, and is claimed good, but yet he allows the lives of people who don't even have the chance to express free will to die so we may "learn a lesson" this is where my analogy of a parent comes in, also where you fully ignore it, and where I think it's inadequate, because a decent parent, a decent, not even good parent, would see the quashing of life as a little more than a "lesson to be learnt" certainly one that spans the range of human history that just hasn't sunk in in 50,000 years or longer. [QUOTE]Well, I'm responding from a Christian perspective and certain aspects of that perspective are what you're arguing against, so the facets of a naturalistic view on a person's mind aren't relevant.[/QUOTE] Don't ever say "naturalistic" again. You use it so fucking poorly and barely understand what it's supposed to mean. How can you argue against your faith then? You can't. You're entirely set in stone that your world view is right and nothing will rock you from that no matter how much you claim to be open minded. If only the world really did work based on the subjective interpretation we all had for it. [url]http://bigthink.com/videos/lawrence-krauss-stop-validating-ignorance[/url] maybe this will make you think about something for a minute but who knows. [editline]2nd September 2013[/editline] you argued diesm last time, this time you're clearly arguing for conventional abrahimic which is vastly different.
so bigfatworm12 what about all the times god clearly meddled in human affairs? (aka the entire bible)
I have the free will to chose the outcomes that god has predetermined for me ahead of time.
Theres quite the bunch of religious clucks in here apparently.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42058527]What about a god that respects free will?[/QUOTE] He only exists in Northern Europe. Everywhere else, most christians start blabbering about how god gave them everything they ever worked for and earned, did everything for them that they ever achieved for themselves and decided everything they themselves decided. We call them Morons, but more widespread labels are Catholics in Europe and Baptists in USA.
hey yeah, if god can never do anything cause it'll count as interfering with free will then what's prayer all about?
Going back about Women in Islam, I found this video to be very interesting. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6Sa-gaCrDk[/media] Skip to about 8:30
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42061338]If you claim free will, that means there's some variable choice to be made. If there is a being that knows matter of factly the outcome of every scenario ever, then doesn't that mean free will is just an illusion or are you not going to state why the claim to free will is more valid?[/QUOTE] No it doesn't because you are still freely deciding on your own, you're just restating your opinion that an omniscient being somehow affects free will without interfering. [QUOTE]But not all beings have the choice to even make.[/QUOTE] In the case of those who've never been able to hear of God or are mentally/physically incapable of it, there are mechanisms of judgement in place to decide if they would had they heard it(not to mention an outright acceptance of very young children and other totally unable to understand the concept). [QUOTE]So the murder of unborn innocents is more acceptable to god than humanity not facing a skinned knee and learning from it? Nope we have vastly different values to life then. You have none.[/QUOTE] Well he wants each human to decide whether they want to be with him or not, that requires an established morality. So if God fixed every mistake we made, we'd have no inclination to regard morality as anything useful, we could do as we wish and everything would be wiped clean. Essentially, humanity would become decadent and spoiled with no regard for right or wrong, just doing as it wishes. [QUOTE]But how does he do that when biblically he claims 10 million lives over the course of the book?[/QUOTE] The old testament covenant was very different to the new testament one. Back then, laws of cleanliness and morality had to be followed to the letter and if they weren't, the punishment was very real. The tribes of Israel were on the move to establish the nation promised to them and all of God's actions were to protect them from the violent and amoral pagan cultures filling the surrounding lands. In any case, by claiming lives God isn't interfering with free will, it's not like he's actively taking control of people's minds and making decisions for them. [QUOTE]No you're not listening. If you have a being who can change anything, and do anything, and knows everything, and is claimed good, but yet he allows the lives of people who don't even have the chance to express free will to die so we may "learn a lesson" this is where my analogy of a parent comes in, also where you fully ignore it, and where I think it's inadequate, because a decent parent, a decent, not even good parent, would see the quashing of life as a little more than a "lesson to be learnt" certainly one that spans the range of human history that just hasn't sunk in in 50,000 years or longer. [/QUOTE] Well what would you propose he do, if he hates to see suffering and the taking of human life, does not want to interfere with the free wills of others and wants to keep morality as a vitally important aspect of our personal lives. There's no real better way to do it really. [QUOTE]Don't ever say "naturalistic" again. You use it so fucking poorly and barely understand what it's supposed to mean. How can you argue against your faith then? You can't. You're entirely set in stone that your world view is right and nothing will rock you from that no matter how much you claim to be open minded. If only the world really did work based on the subjective interpretation we all had for it. [url]http://bigthink.com/videos/lawrence-krauss-stop-validating-ignorance[/url] maybe this will make you think about something for a minute but who knows.[/QUOTE] Naturalism is the belief that nothing exists beyond the natural world, that is the definition I use and that is in fact the actual definition. As for your video, it is literally completely unrelated to anything we're talking about and I haven't even refuted any of the scientific theories mentioned in the video. [QUOTE]you argued diesm last time, this time you're clearly arguing for conventional abrahimic which is vastly different.[/QUOTE] Yes, I was arguing for deism from natural evidence last time, I wasn't even trying to prove God's existence in our previous discussion
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42063567]No it doesn't because you are still freely deciding on your own, you're just restating your opinion that an omniscient being somehow affects free will without interfering. In the case of those who've never been able to hear of God or are mentally/physically incapable of it, there are mechanisms of judgement in place to decide if they would had they heard it(not to mention an outright acceptance of very young children and other totally unable to understand the concept). Well he wants each human to decide whether they want to be with him or not, that requires an established morality. So if God fixed every mistake we made, we'd have no inclination to regard morality as anything useful, we could do as we wish and everything would be wiped clean. Essentially, humanity would become decadent and spoiled with no regard for right or wrong, just doing as it wishes. The old testament covenant was very different to the new testament one. Back then, laws of cleanliness and morality had to be followed to the letter and if they weren't, the punishment was very real. The tribes of Israel were on the move to establish the nation promised to them and all of God's actions were to protect them from the violent and amoral pagan cultures filling the surrounding lands. In any case, by claiming lives God isn't interfering with free will, it's not like he's actively taking control of people's minds and making decisions for them. Well what would you propose he do, if he hates to see suffering and the taking of human life, does not want to interfere with the free wills of others and wants to keep morality as a vitally important aspect of our personal lives. There's no real better way to do it really. Naturalism is the belief that nothing exists beyond the natural world, that is the definition I use and that is in fact the actual definition. As for your video, it is literally completely unrelated to anything we're talking about and I haven't even refuted any of the scientific theories mentioned in the video. Yes, I was arguing for deism from natural evidence last time, I wasn't even trying to prove God's existence in our previous discussion[/QUOTE] Yes there is a real better way really. Fuck this weird as fuck notion of free will and end all suffering. There is no logical reason (even counting in 'free will') for a god to allow people suffering, beyond it's own entertainment or lack of caring. Either a god cares about us puny little things and loves us and makes sure no harm comes to us, god isn't all powerful, or god is evil and enjoys our suffering and hiding behind this "oh but he wants us to have free will" is ridiculous.
Six pages. Six fucking pages of people arguing about labels, especially about the labels people have given themselves. Atheists, you get pissy whenever somebody says "atheism is basically a religion now" and start rambling on about the definition of atheism. Well, look at this thread. Agnostics are apparently heretical and must be brought back into the atheist fold, because "I don't know/care" is not an acceptable answer to you. You're doing [i]exactly[/i] what most atheists criticize theists for, proselytizing. I'm not going to call everyone in this thread names, or rate them boxes, but I am going to point out the immense hypocrisy being displayed here. Can't you just let people label themselves and leave them alone?
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;42064031]Six pages. Six fucking pages of people arguing about labels, especially about the labels people have given themselves. Atheists, you get pissy whenever somebody says "atheism is basically a religion now" and start rambling on about the definition of atheism. Well, look at this thread. Agnostics are apparently heretical and must be brought back into the atheist fold, because "I don't know/care" is not an acceptable answer to you. You're doing [i]exactly[/i] what most atheists criticize theists for, proselytizing. I'm not going to call everyone in this thread names, or rate them boxes, but I am going to point out the immense hypocrisy being displayed here. Can't you just let people label themselves and leave them alone?[/QUOTE] note: not all atheists do this
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.