Why is it ok to bash Christianity but not Atheism?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

I'm happy I saw this thread as I have a slight axe to grind in regards to atheists today. I find far too often now I meet an atheist who delights in telling me everyone who believes in god must be stupid, and that everyone who believes in god think they are better than everyone else, and how everyone who believes in god should listen to Richard Dawkins. I'm sick of it, perhaps it's because I live in England but I can't remember the last time someone religious tried to convert me, told me I was going to hell etc but every other week I hear how Christianity is for bad people who are unevolved and then must tell me about dinosaurs.

As an Agnostic I am pissed off on behalf of Christians they have to listen to this every time they attempt to express their faith. Why am I suddenly meeting so many Atheists with oversized egos who seem to revel in declaring how correct they are whilst everyone else is retarded.

I apologise for the rant I just felt I had to get that off my chest. I don't mean to offend any Atheists, apart from the ones who love telling me how crazy Christianity is and that I gotta read the God Delusion.

The level of animosity and disrespect shown towards the faiths and people who have one on this site is staggering. I genuinely find it hard to fathom how there are so many rude, disrespectful and bigoted people on this forum from the most developed, educated and advanced nations on Earth. It makes me sad that these forumites may be our future leaders, lawmakers and whatnot and they are so hateful and discriminatory.

I find joining in many threads in this particular forum hard because the level of intolerance and refusal to accept any other point of view is frightening. The irony is, decades ago this is what a layperson would have said about the religious.

Funny how it escapes so many complainants to give examples.

Oirish_Martin:
Funny how it escapes so many complainants to give examples.

what do you mean there are plenty of examples in this thread. or do you mean specific examples?

keiskay:

Oirish_Martin:
Funny how it escapes so many complainants to give examples.

what do you mean there are plenty of examples in this thread. or do you mean specific examples?

Specific examples, other threads would be good - can't say I've seen anything particularly egregious in this thread. And often the cases cited have better reasoning behind them than RAAR MUST HATE ON THEISTS (as we have seen already in this thread, iirc), but those who take offence at them often miss it.

Oirish_Martin:

keiskay:

Oirish_Martin:
Funny how it escapes so many complainants to give examples.

what do you mean there are plenty of examples in this thread. or do you mean specific examples?

Specific examples, other threads would be good - can't say I've seen anything particularly egregious in this thread. And often the cases cited have better reasoning behind them than RAAR MUST HATE ON THEISTS (as we have seen already in this thread, iirc), but those who take offence at them often miss it.

well i could point you to any of reonhatos post but i have him blocked.

Oirish_Martin:

keiskay:

Oirish_Martin:
Funny how it escapes so many complainants to give examples.

what do you mean there are plenty of examples in this thread. or do you mean specific examples?

Specific examples, other threads would be good - can't say I've seen anything particularly egregious in this thread. And often the cases cited have better reasoning behind them than RAAR MUST HATE ON THEISTS (as we have seen already in this thread, iirc), but those who take offence at them often miss it.

It happens all the time. Here's one under discussion right now.

NuclearShadow:
Sadly most christians will lie for their religion.

Katatori-kun:

Oirish_Martin:

keiskay:
what do you mean there are plenty of examples in this thread. or do you mean specific examples?

Specific examples, other threads would be good - can't say I've seen anything particularly egregious in this thread. And often the cases cited have better reasoning behind them than RAAR MUST HATE ON THEISTS (as we have seen already in this thread, iirc), but those who take offence at them often miss it.

It happens all the time. Here's one under discussion right now.

NuclearShadow:
Sadly most christians will lie for their religion.

That guy gave evidence for his assertion, though it wasn't conclusive (and 'most' is likely an exaggeration.) Is a plausibly true statement 'bashing'?

Absolutely criticize his syntax or the scope of his claim, but it's difficult to deny that he is talking about a real tendency.

Oirish_Martin:

Specific examples, other threads would be good - can't say I've seen anything particularly egregious in this thread. And often the cases cited have better reasoning behind them than RAAR MUST HATE ON THEISTS (as we have seen already in this thread, iirc), but those who take offence at them often miss it.

I can think of an example

Stagnant:
This just in: radical dominionist homophobic christians want homosexuals killed. Also, the sky is blue and religion is fucking stupid.

Apparently radical Christians represent every form of religion. Nothing at all flawed with that concept.

Demon ID:
I'm happy I saw this thread as I have a slight axe to grind in regards to atheists today. I find far too often now I meet an atheist who delights in telling me everyone who believes in god must be stupid, and that everyone who believes in god think they are better than everyone else, and how everyone who believes in god should listen to Richard Dawkins.

Agreed, you excellently sum up my feelings on this. I honestly hate extremist atheists far more than I do extremist Christians simply because of the obnoxious lengths they go to to state their opinion. There are, of course, more than enough cool atheists out there, it's just the extremists that get on my nerves.

Seanchaidh:

Katatori-kun:

Oirish_Martin:

Specific examples, other threads would be good - can't say I've seen anything particularly egregious in this thread. And often the cases cited have better reasoning behind them than RAAR MUST HATE ON THEISTS (as we have seen already in this thread, iirc), but those who take offence at them often miss it.

It happens all the time. Here's one under discussion right now.

NuclearShadow:
Sadly most christians will lie for their religion.

That guy gave evidence for his assertion, though it wasn't conclusive (and 'most' is likely an exaggeration.) Is a plausibly true statement 'bashing'?

Absolutely criticize his syntax or the scope of his claim, but it's difficult to deny that he is talking about a real tendency.

I would disagree, actually. Making claims about people's motivation are pretty hard to justify. Someone lying is much harder to justify than simply being wrong, mistaken.

Savo:

Demon ID:
I'm happy I saw this thread as I have a slight axe to grind in regards to atheists today. I find far too often now I meet an atheist who delights in telling me everyone who believes in god must be stupid, and that everyone who believes in god think they are better than everyone else, and how everyone who believes in god should listen to Richard Dawkins.

Agreed, you excellently sum up my feelings on this. I honestly hate extremist atheists far more than I do extremist Christians simply because of the obnoxious lengths they go to to state their opinion. There are, of course, more than enough cool atheists out there, it's just the extremists that get on my nerves.

Extremist atheists? You mean internet douchebags? I bet you mean internet douchebags.

And I would like to point out that extremist atheists are not even in the same league as extremist religions. When is the last time an atheist blew up a church in the name of atheism?

Anti-theism and Atheism are different, yo

Oirish_Martin:

Seanchaidh:

Katatori-kun:

It happens all the time. Here's one under discussion right now.

That guy gave evidence for his assertion, though it wasn't conclusive (and 'most' is likely an exaggeration.) Is a plausibly true statement 'bashing'?

Absolutely criticize his syntax or the scope of his claim, but it's difficult to deny that he is talking about a real tendency.

I would disagree, actually. Making claims about people's motivation are pretty hard to justify. Someone lying is much harder to justify than simply being wrong, mistaken.

Whether you want to call it lying or not, the guy is talking about something real.

Seanchaidh:
Whether you want to call it lying or not, the guy is talking about something real.

How? He used completely the wrong descriptor, so what exactly is he referring to? I get the general point and agree with it, but this is not a good example.

I raised the criticism I did about naming examples, because while it may be the case that antitheists understate the degree to which they use a particular kind of rhetoric, it also follows that theists who are hurt by it will focus on it and overstate it. The tendency is to "whuh all these atheists bashing Christianity" while not giving any clue as to the extent of it. It's there, doubtless, but not to such an extreme degree. There's maybe the problem of moderatorship as Katatori pointed out simply because of what is normative here due to demography, but even so.

Oirish_Martin:

Seanchaidh:
Whether you want to call it lying or not, the guy is talking about something real.

How? He used completely the wrong descriptor, so what exactly is he referring to? I get the general point and agree with it, but this is not a good example.

Did he? You might assume that people genuinely believe they had AIDS or something and then reported their miracle recovery in good faith, but it seems equally or more plausible that such would be a lie-- at the very least an untruth. The quote makes quite a bit more sense when it isn't being picked apart out of the context of the experience he presented. The context is sufficient to make criticism of the 'bashing' an objection to mere word choice, or even style. I don't think "but he didn't preface by saying 'a subset' or 'a minority of...'!" warrants complaints of 'bashing', and certainly not to any degree that would require intervention.

I raised the criticism I did about naming examples, because while it may be the case that antitheists understate the degree to which they use a particular kind of rhetoric, it also follows that theists who are hurt by it will focus on it and overstate it. The tendency is to "whuh all these atheists bashing Christianity" while not giving any clue as to the extent of it. It's there, doubtless, but not to such an extreme degree.

Yes.

There's maybe the problem of moderatorship as Katatori pointed out simply because of what is normative here due to demography, but even so.

I don't think Katatori would know good moderatorship if it banned him.

76% of Americans identify is Christian.

About 6.5 billion people in the world belong to one religion or another.

You poor, oppressed staggering majority. It must be terrible, to be bogglingly numerous and to belong to a club that's been around for thousands of years and has influence in nearly every aspect of our lives.

Of course that influence is ever-shrinking. And the world is steadily better for it.

Unfortunately I do not possess a violin small enough to play.

itsthesheppy:
76% of Americans identify is Christian.

Not everyone on this board is in America.

You poor, oppressed staggering majority. It must be terrible, to be bogglingly numerous and to belong to a club that's been around for thousands of years and has influence in nearly every aspect of our lives.

How's about this radical idea: Attacking people for the group they are in is wrong regardless of how big the group is? I know, shocking, isn't it.

Katatori-kun:

itsthesheppy:
76% of Americans identify is Christian.

Not everyone on this board is in America.

S'why I added the bit about worldwide religious population.

You poor, oppressed staggering majority. It must be terrible, to be bogglingly numerous and to belong to a club that's been around for thousands of years and has influence in nearly every aspect of our lives.

How's about this radical idea: Attacking people for the group they are in is wrong regardless of how big the group is? I know, shocking, isn't it.

To offer some basic examples, if you identify as a member of the KKK, I'm going to accuse you of racism. If you identify as a member of Al Qaeda I'll criticize you for tacitly supporting domestic terrorism. If I tell you I recently joined NAMBLA you have every right to lay into me.

If you do not support the actions of the group you are in, leave the group. If you want to belong to a community, then you are a representative of that community and its actions reflect on you. It's fair game.

itsthesheppy:
To offer some basic examples, if you identify as a member of the KKK, I'm going to accuse you of racism. If you identify as a member of Al Qaeda I'll criticize you for tacitly supporting domestic terrorism. If I tell you I recently joined NAMBLA you have every right to lay into me.

If you do not support the actions of the group you are in, leave the group. If you want to belong to a community, then you are a representative of that community and its actions reflect on you. It's fair game.

And there you have the fallacy of everyone opposing this thread: the false assumption that all of Christianity is the same community, taking the same actions and reflected universally by standing for the same things.

Katatori-kun:

itsthesheppy:
To offer some basic examples, if you identify as a member of the KKK, I'm going to accuse you of racism. If you identify as a member of Al Qaeda I'll criticize you for tacitly supporting domestic terrorism. If I tell you I recently joined NAMBLA you have every right to lay into me.

If you do not support the actions of the group you are in, leave the group. If you want to belong to a community, then you are a representative of that community and its actions reflect on you. It's fair game.

And there you have the fallacy of everyone opposing this thread: the false assumption that all of Christianity is the same community, taking the same actions and reflected universally by standing for the same things.

Is that so? Can you please list for me the Christian denominations that do not consider the bible to be the word of god, and do not profess faith in Yahweh, Jesus, angels and so forth? I've not heard of them, and would be very interested in learning.

I was raised catholic, so they don't qualify obviously, but I'm not as familiar with the multitude of protestant factions, so you have an opportunity here to educate me.

Katatori-kun:

itsthesheppy:
To offer some basic examples, if you identify as a member of the KKK, I'm going to accuse you of racism. If you identify as a member of Al Qaeda I'll criticize you for tacitly supporting domestic terrorism. If I tell you I recently joined NAMBLA you have every right to lay into me.

If you do not support the actions of the group you are in, leave the group. If you want to belong to a community, then you are a representative of that community and its actions reflect on you. It's fair game.

And there you have the fallacy of everyone opposing this thread: the false assumption that all of Christianity is the same community, taking the same actions and reflected universally by standing for the same things.

Christians often disagree with the idea that whether or not someone is Christian is completely unimportant, so that seems completely fair.

itsthesheppy:
Is that so? Can you please list for me the Christian denominations that do not consider the bible to be the word of god

Loads of them. Most notably Catholics themselves.

Rather than list denominations, however, I'll simply give you a link to historical criticism, an approach to the Bible that does not treat it as the literal word of God that has been in use for over 400 years.

Katatori-kun:

itsthesheppy:
Is that so? Can you please list for me the Christian denominations that do not consider the bible to be the word of god

Loads of them. Most notably Catholics themselves.

Rather than list denominations, however, I'll simply give you a link to historical criticism, an approach to the Bible that does not treat it as the literal word of God that has been in use for over 400 years.

Ignoring for a moment the preposterous suggestion that 'loads' of christian denominations don't consider the bible to be the word of god, I have to point out that you have failed to include a list of denominations that don't worship Jesus as the son of god, consider god a real entity, and so forth. Those are rather important bits, seeing as when I 'attack' christians (or muslims, or jews, etc.) what I am attacking is mass delusional thinking and intellectual dishonesty. The bedrock, as it were, of a great deal of human suffering.

itsthesheppy:

Katatori-kun:

itsthesheppy:
Is that so? Can you please list for me the Christian denominations that do not consider the bible to be the word of god

Loads of them. Most notably Catholics themselves.

Rather than list denominations, however, I'll simply give you a link to historical criticism, an approach to the Bible that does not treat it as the literal word of God that has been in use for over 400 years.

Ignoring for a moment the preposterous suggestion that 'loads' of christian denominations don't consider the bible to be the word of god,

A suggestion you claim is proposterous without evidence. You just don't like the facts because they don't fit what you want to be true. Now who does that remind me of...?

Those are rather important bits, seeing as when I 'attack' christians (or muslims, or jews, etc.) what I am attacking is mass delusional thinking and intellectual dishonesty.

Then you are either simply intolerant, or you don't comprehend what religious belief can be.

Katatori-kun:

itsthesheppy:

Katatori-kun:

Loads of them. Most notably Catholics themselves.

Rather than list denominations, however, I'll simply give you a link to historical criticism, an approach to the Bible that does not treat it as the literal word of God that has been in use for over 400 years.

Ignoring for a moment the preposterous suggestion that 'loads' of christian denominations don't consider the bible to be the word of god,

A suggestion you claim is proposterous without evidence. You just don't like the facts because they don't fit what you want to be true. Now who does that remind me of...?

Those are rather important bits, seeing as when I 'attack' christians (or muslims, or jews, etc.) what I am attacking is mass delusional thinking and intellectual dishonesty.

Then you are either simply intolerant, or you don't comprehend what religious belief can be.

Item 1: It's preposterous because it is logically inconsistent and does not match with observed reality.

The bible is supposedly a book from god to man. Whether it was dictated directly or merely 'divinely inspired' is inconsequential; it is the terrestrial representation of god's will and therefor cannot be wrong. Since god does not seem interested in the direct communication we see exemplified from many of the stories recounted in the bible, the book represents all there is, in terms of reference material, to represent his will. If it is intentionally misleading, then no part of it can be trusted unless some kind of cipher is found.

I cannot stress enough how important it is that the bible cannot be wrong if the very concept of religion is to work. God cannot be fallible, because if he is then there is no point in worshiping him; no more than there'd be a point of worshiping Nikolai Tesla simply because he was smart. For the bible to hold any special authority over other books, it must be the word of god and the word of god must be perfect; otherwise it holds no more water than Harry Potter or Twilight, in terms of objective value.

So to claim that the bible is not the word of god is to say that nothing in the bible can be taken as an absolute. And since the bible presents itself as an absolute authority (nowhere within the text is it suggested that the Ten Commandments or John 3:16 are open to interpretation) exerting judgmental authority over it elevates oneself in a position above or higher than the bible; in a sense, presuming to have a better or more refined idea of what god intended to say. It reduces the bible to nothing more than a storybook, and those who follow it have an even steeper uphill battle ahead of them, as they compete with people who think that Harry Potter is a historical account.

Item 2: The religious belief I am attacking is "faith"; the belief in something for which there is no evidence. It is the fundamental cornerstone of religious thinking. I don't have any direct evidence that Jesus died for my sins, but I have faith that he did. I don't have evidence that my prayers are listened to, but I have faith that they are.

This is delusional thinking. Belief informs action, and we see evidence of these actions all over the world, in the persecution of homosexuals, the resistance to safe sex practices, in the oppression of women in developing (and developed!) countries. I attack that belief at its heart, and that would be the very concept of 'faith'.

So yes, I do understand it.

Plain question, plain answer.

One group believes in magic, one does not. Guess which I, if asked, mock?

Seanchaidh:
Did he? You might assume that people genuinely believe they had AIDS or something and then reported their miracle recovery in good faith, but it seems equally or more plausible that such would be a lie-- at the very least an untruth. The quote makes quite a bit more sense when it isn't being picked apart out of the context of the experience he presented. The context is sufficient to make criticism of the 'bashing' an objection to mere word choice, or even style. I don't think "but he didn't preface by saying 'a subset' or 'a minority of...'!" warrants complaints of 'bashing', and certainly not to any degree that would require intervention.

I disagree. I think even a small quantifier goes a long way, and it really isn't a lot to ask for people to do. I'll settle for overuse of the incredibly vague "some". It really does help smooth over a lot of these clashes.

I don't think Katatori would know good moderatorship if it banned him.

Now, now.

Damien Granz:

-SNIP-

I was all getting ready to write a really long response to this, but I don't think I could write anything as effective and succinct as this. Well said sir. I agree with all of your points.

Oirish_Martin:

Seanchaidh:
Did he? You might assume that people genuinely believe they had AIDS or something and then reported their miracle recovery in good faith, but it seems equally or more plausible that such would be a lie-- at the very least an untruth. The quote makes quite a bit more sense when it isn't being picked apart out of the context of the experience he presented. The context is sufficient to make criticism of the 'bashing' an objection to mere word choice, or even style. I don't think "but he didn't preface by saying 'a subset' or 'a minority of...'!" warrants complaints of 'bashing', and certainly not to any degree that would require intervention.

I disagree. I think even a small quantifier goes a long way, and it really isn't a lot to ask for people to do. I'll settle for overuse of the incredibly vague "some". It really does help smooth over a lot of these clashes.

It's not a lot to ask, but it is too much to demand. Some people don't want to litter their prose with 'some'.

Seanchaidh:

Oirish_Martin:

Seanchaidh:
Did he? You might assume that people genuinely believe they had AIDS or something and then reported their miracle recovery in good faith, but it seems equally or more plausible that such would be a lie-- at the very least an untruth. The quote makes quite a bit more sense when it isn't being picked apart out of the context of the experience he presented. The context is sufficient to make criticism of the 'bashing' an objection to mere word choice, or even style. I don't think "but he didn't preface by saying 'a subset' or 'a minority of...'!" warrants complaints of 'bashing', and certainly not to any degree that would require intervention.

I disagree. I think even a small quantifier goes a long way, and it really isn't a lot to ask for people to do. I'll settle for overuse of the incredibly vague "some". It really does help smooth over a lot of these clashes.

It's not a lot to ask, but it is too much to demand. Some people don't want to litter their prose with 'some'.

Demand? It depends when. If it's actually warranted - where the generalisation made is too much - then I think it's perfectly fine to demand it.

And of course there are other quantifiers out there - I just don't see what the deal is about taking a bit more care when writing in order to add one more word to a sentence containing a claim that will otherwise come across as a generalisation. If one's goal is actual discussion, then this surely can't be a big deal.

Oirish_Martin:

Seanchaidh:

Oirish_Martin:

I disagree. I think even a small quantifier goes a long way, and it really isn't a lot to ask for people to do. I'll settle for overuse of the incredibly vague "some". It really does help smooth over a lot of these clashes.

It's not a lot to ask, but it is too much to demand. Some people don't want to litter their prose with 'some'.

Demand? It depends when. If it's actually warranted - where the generalisation made is too much - then I think it's perfectly fine to demand it.

And of course there are other quantifiers out there - I just don't see what the deal is about taking a bit more care when writing in order to add one more word to a sentence containing a claim that will otherwise come across as a generalisation. If one's goal is actual discussion, then this surely can't be a big deal.

If one's goal is actual discussion, then it can neither be a big deal to refrain from interpreting ambiguous statements in the least charitable way possible.

Seanchaidh:

Oirish_Martin:

Seanchaidh:

It's not a lot to ask, but it is too much to demand. Some people don't want to litter their prose with 'some'.

Demand? It depends when. If it's actually warranted - where the generalisation made is too much - then I think it's perfectly fine to demand it.

And of course there are other quantifiers out there - I just don't see what the deal is about taking a bit more care when writing in order to add one more word to a sentence containing a claim that will otherwise come across as a generalisation. If one's goal is actual discussion, then this surely can't be a big deal.

If one's goal is actual discussion, then it can neither be a big deal to refrain from interpreting ambiguous statements in the least charitable way possible.

so if someone says atheist are douche bags and devil worshipers, you will interpret it as not all atheist?

itsthesheppy:

Katatori-kun:

itsthesheppy:

Ignoring for a moment the preposterous suggestion that 'loads' of christian denominations don't consider the bible to be the word of god,

A suggestion you claim is proposterous without evidence. You just don't like the facts because they don't fit what you want to be true. Now who does that remind me of...?

Those are rather important bits, seeing as when I 'attack' christians (or muslims, or jews, etc.) what I am attacking is mass delusional thinking and intellectual dishonesty.

Then you are either simply intolerant, or you don't comprehend what religious belief can be.

Item 1: It's preposterous because it is logically inconsistent and does not match with observed reality.

The bible is supposedly a book from god to man. Whether it was dictated directly or merely 'divinely inspired' is inconsequential; it is the terrestrial representation of god's will and therefor cannot be wrong. Since god does not seem interested in the direct communication we see exemplified from many of the stories recounted in the bible, the book represents all there is, in terms of reference material, to represent his will. If it is intentionally misleading, then no part of it can be trusted unless some kind of cipher is found.

I cannot stress enough how important it is that the bible cannot be wrong if the very concept of religion is to work. God cannot be fallible, because if he is then there is no point in worshiping him; no more than there'd be a point of worshiping Nikolai Tesla simply because he was smart. For the bible to hold any special authority over other books, it must be the word of god and the word of god must be perfect; otherwise it holds no more water than Harry Potter or Twilight, in terms of objective value.

So to claim that the bible is not the word of god is to say that nothing in the bible can be taken as an absolute. And since the bible presents itself as an absolute authority (nowhere within the text is it suggested that the Ten Commandments or John 3:16 are open to interpretation) exerting judgmental authority over it elevates oneself in a position above or higher than the bible; in a sense, presuming to have a better or more refined idea of what god intended to say. It reduces the bible to nothing more than a storybook, and those who follow it have an even steeper uphill battle ahead of them, as they compete with people who think that Harry Potter is a historical account.

Item 2: The religious belief I am attacking is "faith"; the belief in something for which there is no evidence. It is the fundamental cornerstone of religious thinking. I don't have any direct evidence that Jesus died for my sins, but I have faith that he did. I don't have evidence that my prayers are listened to, but I have faith that they are.

This is delusional thinking. Belief informs action, and we see evidence of these actions all over the world, in the persecution of homosexuals, the resistance to safe sex practices, in the oppression of women in developing (and developed!) countries. I attack that belief at its heart, and that would be the very concept of 'faith'.

So yes, I do understand it.

ugh, some churches do claim it to be the literal word of god, while many call it mans interpretations of the words of god. man is fallible so thats how many churches explain the inconsistencies. that and mass translations over long periods of time with different authors.

Bassik:

Savo:

Demon ID:
I'm happy I saw this thread as I have a slight axe to grind in regards to atheists today. I find far too often now I meet an atheist who delights in telling me everyone who believes in god must be stupid, and that everyone who believes in god think they are better than everyone else, and how everyone who believes in god should listen to Richard Dawkins.

Agreed, you excellently sum up my feelings on this. I honestly hate extremist atheists far more than I do extremist Christians simply because of the obnoxious lengths they go to to state their opinion. There are, of course, more than enough cool atheists out there, it's just the extremists that get on my nerves.

Extremist atheists? You mean internet douchebags? I bet you mean internet douchebags.

And I would like to point out that extremist atheists are not even in the same league as extremist religions. When is the last time an atheist blew up a church in the name of atheism?

To a large extent, yes. I have seen people who are obnoxious about their atheism in real life, but it is the internet ones that I see far more often going on rants about how religion and its followers suck because of the free forum the internet provides. Y'know, anonymity of the internet and all that.

And yes, I agree that extreme atheists are not as bad as the scarier religious folk, although I wasn't really meaning extreme in that sense. I probably should have used a different word to describe the more impassioned members of religion and atheism.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked