Cowards

[mardukblood2009]

What are you talking about?

[Flackle]

Maybe we should have an Insult thread,where we could simply throw names around at each other.

I understand it goes on regardless,but if we all agree to meet up in that thread every day,maybe the other threads would get some peace.

Of course,it's all wishful thinking,I suppose.

LOL, JediJohnnie!  That's a GREAT idea!  It's pretty apparent threads like these get very heated.  I enjoy reading them but, otherwise I ignore them.  You know what they say - Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics.  Even if you win, you're still retarded.

Same could be said for people who still use that stupid, overused quote. Arguing doesn't make you stupid, it makes you a better human being. The fact that I even bother to argue at all means I am open to learning new things and I take thinking about other people's ideas seriously. I may disagree with them, and argue against them, but I never take it personal. I enjoy the process, and have fun with it. Why should arguing be such a bad thing?

[BlackSheepNY]

Maybe we should have an Insult thread,where we could simply throw names around at each other.

I understand it goes on regardless,but if we all agree to meet up in that thread every day,maybe the other threads would get some peace.

Of course,it's all wishful thinking,I suppose.

LOL, JediJohnnie!  That's a GREAT idea!  It's pretty apparent threads like these get very heated.  I enjoy reading them but, otherwise I ignore them.  You know what they say - Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics.  Even if you win, you're still retarded.

Same could be said for people who still use that stupid, overused quote. Arguing doesn't make you stupid, it makes you a better human being. The fact that I even bother to argue at all means I am open to learning new things and I take thinking about other people's ideas seriously. I may disagree with them, and argue against them, but I never take it personal. I enjoy the process, and have fun with it. Why should arguing be such a bad thing?

Flackle, my post wasn't meant to insult you or anyone else but, you gotta admit it's true.  Isn't there enough garbage in the world to put up with?  Why make it worse by arguing (especially over the internet) when you've got the control to just walk away?  That's all I meant by it.  However, I understand that there are people who LIVE for it.  I guess it makes their lives more interesting.  It certainly keeps the posts going, doesn't it?

[jcribb16]

Maybe we should have an Insult thread,where we could simply throw names around at each other.

I understand it goes on regardless,but if we all agree to meet up in that thread every day,maybe the other threads would get some peace.

Of course,it's all wishful thinking,I suppose.

LOL, JediJohnnie!  That's a GREAT idea!  It's pretty apparent threads like these get very heated.  I enjoy reading them but, otherwise I ignore them.  You know what they say - Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics.  Even if you win, you're still retarded.

Same could be said for people who still use that stupid, overused quote. Arguing doesn't make you stupid, it makes you a better human being. The fact that I even bother to argue at all means I am open to learning new things and I take thinking about other people's ideas seriously. I may disagree with them, and argue against them, but I never take it personal. I enjoy the process, and have fun with it. Why should arguing be such a bad thing?

Flackle, my post wasn't meant to insult you or anyone else but, you gotta admit it's true.  Isn't there enough garbage in the world to put up with?  Why make it worse by arguing (especially over the internet) when you've got the control to just walk away?  That's all I meant by it.  However, I understand that there are people who LIVE for it.  I guess it makes their lives more interesting.  It certainly keeps the posts going, doesn't it?

Well said!

[falcon9]

Arguing doesn't make you stupid, it makes you a better human being. The fact that I even bother to argue at all means I am open to learning new things and I take thinking about other people's ideas seriously. I may disagree with them, and argue against them, but I never take it personal. I enjoy the process, and have fun with it. Why should arguing be such a bad thing?

Well-reasoned.

However, I understand that there are people who LIVE for it.  I guess it makes their lives more interesting.

Well said!

It's unsurprising that someone who cannot reason would agree with poorly unreasoned assumptions, (especially those which would restrict or constrain counter-arguments to such unreasoning to allow them to go unopposed).

[BlackSheepNY]

Arguing doesn't make you stupid, it makes you a better human being. The fact that I even bother to argue at all means I am open to learning new things and I take thinking about other people's ideas seriously. I may disagree with them, and argue against them, but I never take it personal. I enjoy the process, and have fun with it. Why should arguing be such a bad thing?

Well-reasoned.

However, I understand that there are people who LIVE for it.  I guess it makes their lives more interesting.

Well said!

It's unsurprising that someone who cannot reason would agree with poorly unreasoned assumptions, (especially those which would restrict or constrain counter-arguments to such unreasoning to allow them to go unopposed).

Haha!  That's cool, Falcon9, but it's got nothing to do with "reasoning" and EVERYTHING to do with "control."  I see you TRY to "control" plenty of the conversations, and that's OK!  Like I said, it sure does keep those posts comin'! 

[falcon9]

Arguing doesn't make you stupid, it makes you a better human being. The fact that I even bother to argue at all means I am open to learning new things and I take thinking about other people's ideas seriously. I may disagree with them, and argue against them, but I never take it personal. I enjoy the process, and have fun with it. Why should arguing be such a bad thing?

Well-reasoned.

However, I understand that there are people who LIVE for it.  I guess it makes their lives more interesting.

Well said!

It's unsurprising that someone who cannot reason would agree with poorly unreasoned assumptions, (especially those which would restrict or constrain counter-arguments to such unreasoning to allow them to go unopposed).

Haha!  That's cool, Falcon9, but it's got nothing to do with "reasoning" and EVERYTHING to do with "control."  I see you TRY to "control" plenty of the conversations, and that's OK!  Like I said, it sure does keep those posts comin'! 

Then you aren't especially observant since the one I replied to, ("jcribb16"), has been trying to control dissenting responses to religious contentions for years now, (archived evidence of attempted censorship, restricting content of replies and other respressive methods of "control" are attributed to so many of her posts that it has become an observable pattern).

[BlackSheepNY]

Arguing doesn't make you stupid, it makes you a better human being. The fact that I even bother to argue at all means I am open to learning new things and I take thinking about other people's ideas seriously. I may disagree with them, and argue against them, but I never take it personal. I enjoy the process, and have fun with it. Why should arguing be such a bad thing?

Well-reasoned.

However, I understand that there are people who LIVE for it.  I guess it makes their lives more interesting.

Well said!

It's unsurprising that someone who cannot reason would agree with poorly unreasoned assumptions, (especially those which would restrict or constrain counter-arguments to such unreasoning to allow them to go unopposed).

Haha!  That's cool, Falcon9, but it's got nothing to do with "reasoning" and EVERYTHING to do with "control."  I see you TRY to "control" plenty of the conversations, and that's OK!  Like I said, it sure does keep those posts comin'! 

Then you aren't especially observant since the one I replied to, ("jcribb16"), has been trying to control dissenting responses to religious contentions for years now, (archived evidence of attempted censorship, restricting content of replies and other respressive methods of "control" are attributed to so many of her posts that it has become an observable pattern).

But that's the whole point, Falcon9.  No matter what the opinion may be, whether we like it or not, we're all entitled to it.  Isn't Freedom of Speech GRAND!?  I sure think so!

[falcon9]

However, I understand that there are people who LIVE for it.  I guess it makes their lives more interesting.

Well said!

It's unsurprising that someone who cannot reason would agree with poorly unreasoned assumptions, (especially those which would restrict or constrain counter-arguments to such unreasoning to allow them to go unopposed).

Haha!  That's cool, Falcon9, but it's got nothing to do with "reasoning" and EVERYTHING to do with "control."  I see you TRY to "control" plenty of the conversations, and that's OK!  Like I said, it sure does keep those posts comin'! 

Then you aren't especially observant since the one I replied to, ("jcribb16"), has been trying to control dissenting responses to religious contentions for years now, (archived evidence of attempted censorship, restricting content of replies and other respressive methods of "control" are attributed to so many of her posts that it has become an observable pattern).

But that's the whole point, Falcon9.  No matter what the opinion may be, whether we like it or not, we're all entitled to it.  Isn't Freedom of Speech GRAND!?  I sure think so!

In that case, you are still missing the point; those attempts at censoring/restricting/oppressing dissenting viewpoints to religious claims are attempts to suppress such "freedom of speech", not encourage it.  The difference is nominally obvious; opposing empty religious opinion in not the same as attempting to suppress dissenting viewpoints.

[jcribb16]

However, I understand that there are people who LIVE for it.  I guess it makes their lives more interesting.

Well said!

It's unsurprising that someone who cannot reason would agree with poorly unreasoned assumptions, (especially those which would restrict or constrain counter-arguments to such unreasoning to allow them to go unopposed).

Haha!  That's cool, Falcon9, but it's got nothing to do with "reasoning" and EVERYTHING to do with "control."  I see you TRY to "control" plenty of the conversations, and that's OK!  Like I said, it sure does keep those posts comin'! 

Then you aren't especially observant since the one I replied to, ("jcribb16"), has been trying to control dissenting responses to religious contentions for years now, (archived evidence of attempted censorship, restricting content of replies and other respressive methods of "control" are attributed to so many of her posts that it has become an observable pattern).

But that's the whole point, Falcon9.  No matter what the opinion may be, whether we like it or not, we're all entitled to it.  Isn't Freedom of Speech GRAND!?  I sure think so!

In that case, you are still missing the point; those attempts at censoring/restricting/oppressing dissenting viewpoints to religious claims are attempts to suppress such "freedom of speech", not encourage it.  The difference is nominally obvious; opposing empty religious opinion in not the same as attempting to suppress dissenting viewpoints.

Actually, it's worse than that, because opposing "empty" religious opinion is biased and judgmental, in that you lack tolerance and respect of others who have the right to choose and live their life under the leading of God.  You don't have to choose it for yourself, but calling believers' choices the names and words you do, is intolerance and disrespect for their beliefs. 

[jcribb16]

Arguing doesn't make you stupid, it makes you a better human being. The fact that I even bother to argue at all means I am open to learning new things and I take thinking about other people's ideas seriously. I may disagree with them, and argue against them, but I never take it personal. I enjoy the process, and have fun with it. Why should arguing be such a bad thing?

Well-reasoned.

However, I understand that there are people who LIVE for it.  I guess it makes their lives more interesting.

Well said!

It's unsurprising that someone who cannot reason would agree with poorly unreasoned assumptions, (especially those which would restrict or constrain counter-arguments to such unreasoning to allow them to go unopposed).

Haha!  That's cool, Falcon9, but it's got nothing to do with "reasoning" and EVERYTHING to do with "control."  I see you TRY to "control" plenty of the conversations, and that's OK!  Like I said, it sure does keep those posts comin'! 

Then you aren't especially observant since the one I replied to, ("jcribb16"), has been trying to control dissenting responses to religious contentions for years now, (archived evidence of attempted censorship, restricting content of replies and other respressive methods of "control" are attributed to so many of her posts that it has become an observable pattern).

Aww... how nice of you to be so concerned with my "dissenting" responses for "years now."  Wow, it's that important to you, aye?  I am giving my opinions and views, actually, on the hate-filled responses you place on believers, since you choose not to actually debate and discuss the topic.  You are trying to restrict my content of replies in disagreeing/opposing your bashing of believers.

 You never let up on believers, always think you are right and factual with your hateful attitude/words you aim to believers, and refuse to actually debate and discuss.  I have the right to my thoughts and views, as well, and do not have to sit back and do nothing when you act like you do towards believers, including myself.  So yes, when you consistently try and make believers look foolish, irrational, or mentally off with their way of thinking, I, or anyone else who chooses, will come back with thoughts, views, and opinions, challenging your disrespectful words. 

Speaking of "an observable pattern," you are at the top of the list for that.  But you already knew that, since you work so hard for that trophy.  You can have it and enjoy it, as you already do. 

[falcon9]

Actually, it's worse than that, because opposing "empty" religious opinion is biased and judgmental ...

That's accurate as far as opposing irrational empty religious opinion and judging blind faith to be "biased" against rationality.

...in that you lack tolerance and respect of others who have the right to choose and live their life under the leading of God.  You don't have to choose it for yourself, but calling believers' choices the names and words you do, is intolerance and disrespect for their beliefs. 

There are no mandated requirements to "respect" a publically-posted irrational opinion, (religious or otherwise).  The holders of blind religious faiths are able to do so within the privacy of their own deluded minds without interference.  However, as soon as thoswe self-delusions leave the confines of the minds of religious adherents and offensively attempt to infect other minds with the same irrationalities, opposition can and does occur.  Just as such religious adherents have the option to phrase their proselytizations of blind faith in any way which doesn't violate FC TOS, so too do those who oppose such self-delusions have the same option.  That means that neither religious adherents nor any non-religious opposition gets to dictate content to the other, (despite your continued ineefective efforts to suppress opposing viewpoints in that manner).

[jcribb16]

Actually, it's worse than that, because opposing "empty" religious opinion is biased and judgmental ...

That's accurate as far as opposing irrational empty religious opinion and judging blind faith to be "biased" against rationality.

...in that you lack tolerance and respect of others who have the right to choose and live their life under the leading of God.  You don't have to choose it for yourself, but calling believers' choices the names and words you do, is intolerance and disrespect for their beliefs. 

There are no mandated requirements to "respect" a publically-posted irrational opinion, (religious or otherwise).  The holders of blind religious faiths are able to do so within the privacy of their own deluded minds without interference.  However, as soon as thoswe self-delusions leave the confines of the minds of religious adherents and offensively attempt to infect other minds with the same irrationalities, opposition can and does occur.  Just as such religious adherents have the option to phrase their proselytizations of blind faith in any way which doesn't violate FC TOS, so too do those who oppose such self-delusions have the same option.  That means that neither religious adherents nor any non-religious opposition gets to dictate content to the other, (despite your continued ineefective efforts to suppress opposing viewpoints in that manner).

It's called COMMON COURTESY, sir.   No one is infecting other minds - knock it off.  If it was, the thread would be locked.  You don't like them - fine.  But stop spreading untruths about what many of the Bible verse threads are for. 

I enjoy conversing, inspiring, encouraging, praying for others, just as I enjoy receiving the same from other believers.  It doesn't mean I'm trying to force or ram anything down throats - because, remember?  YOU don't HAVE to ENTER the thread in the first place.  COMMON COURTESY OF RESPECT FROM/FOR DECENT HUMAN BEINGS.

You, essentially, are trying to make the effort of suppressing believers from sharing with each other, just because you don't like the thread in the first place.  Your efforts are ineffective, to say the least.  I will also add that the Bible verse threads ARE NOT TRYING TO BE EXCLUSIVE BELIEVER'S CLUBS.  They are posted as any other subject or topic would be.  If there is a Bible verse thread, it is COMMON SENSE to expect those who enjoy Bible verses, to come in and share them with each other, and DOES NOT MEAN they are exclusive.  COMMON SENSE, sir.

[falcon9]

It's called COMMON COURTESY, sir. 

No, it's a continued attempt at suppressing opposing viewpoints under the guise of "courtesy". There are no mandated requirements to "respect" a publically-posted irrational opinion, (religious or otherwise).  The holders of blind religious faiths are able to do so within the privacy of their own deluded minds without interference.  However, as soon as thoswe self-delusions leave the confines of the minds of religious adherents and offensively attempt to infect other minds with the same irrationalities, opposition can and does occur.  Just as such religious adherents have the option to phrase their proselytizations of blind faith in any way which doesn't violate FC TOS, so too do those who oppose such self-delusions have the same option.  That means that neither religious adherents nor any non-religious opposition gets to dictate content to the other, (despite your continued ineefective efforts to suppress opposing viewpoints in that manner).

No one is infecting other minds - knock it off.  If it was, the thread would be locked.  You don't like them - fine.  But stop spreading untruths about what many of the Bible verse threads are for. 

I'm neither the first, nor the last to accurately characterize religions as mind virii.  Such irrational beliefs are spread by proselytizing, (whether in verbal or written form), and they can infect the minds of the fearful/gullible/somewhat slow of wit if unopposed.  As stated previously, there are no current FC prohibitions against either religious proselytizing nor, opposing it.

You, essentially, are trying to make the effort of suppressing believers from sharing ...

What, precisely, is being "shared" by reposting requoted material already available to those it's supposedly being "shared" with - repetition?  Additionally, I've reiterated enough times that posts opposing such religious blind faith and proselytizing it are not an "effort of suppressing believers from sharing ..." since the religious adherents continue proselytizing unabated.

I will also add that the Bible verse threads ARE NOT TRYING TO BE EXCLUSIVE BELIEVER'S CLUBS.  

If that were accurate, why are there numerous archived posts complaining about "atheists", opposing viewpoints, being logically challenged and trying to pose dissent as "rude/disrespectful/impolite" etc. in evidence to the contrary of your empty assertion? <--rhetorical question

[jcribb16]

It's called COMMON COURTESY, sir. 

No, it's a continued attempt at suppressing opposing viewpoints under the guise of "courtesy". There are no mandated requirements to "respect" a publically-posted irrational opinion, (religious or otherwise).  The holders of blind religious faiths are able to do so within the privacy of their own deluded minds without interference.  However, as soon as thoswe self-delusions leave the confines of the minds of religious adherents and offensively attempt to infect other minds with the same irrationalities, opposition can and does occur.  Just as such religious adherents have the option to phrase their proselytizations of blind faith in any way which doesn't violate FC TOS, so too do those who oppose such self-delusions have the same option.  That means that neither religious adherents nor any non-religious opposition gets to dictate content to the other, (despite your continued ineefective efforts to suppress opposing viewpoints in that manner).

No one is infecting other minds - knock it off.  If it was, the thread would be locked.  You don't like them - fine.  But stop spreading untruths about what many of the Bible verse threads are for. 

I'm neither the first, nor the last to accurately characterize religions as mind virii.  Such irrational beliefs are spread by proselytizing, (whether in verbal or written form), and they can infect the minds of the fearful/gullible/somewhat slow of wit if unopposed.  As stated previously, there are no current FC prohibitions against either religious proselytizing nor, opposing it.

You, essentially, are trying to make the effort of suppressing believers from sharing ...

What, precisely, is being "shared" by reposting requoted material already available to those it's supposedly being "shared" with - repetition?  Additionally, I've reiterated enough times that posts opposing such religious blind faith and proselytizing it are not an "effort of suppressing believers from sharing ..." since the religious adherents continue proselytizing unabated.

I will also add that the Bible verse threads ARE NOT TRYING TO BE EXCLUSIVE BELIEVER'S CLUBS.  

If that were accurate, why are there numerous archived posts complaining about "atheists", opposing viewpoints, being logically challenged and trying to pose dissent as "rude/disrespectful/impolite" etc. in evidence to the contrary of your empty assertion? <--rhetorical question

Your lack of common courtesy is well noted.  As are your unreasonable views and disrespect toward others who choose to believe in God.  You are deeply rooted in your intolerance to believers and this is also well noted.  However, I will say this - your attitude and comments only strengthen my commitment and loyalty to Jesus Christ.  You continue on your tirade - it's obvious you are on an unstoppable commitment to bash believers.  I will continue with my choice of serving my Lord.

It's a good thing the moderator isn't you - you apparently are one, if given the opportunity, who would do everything you could (like the Atheist Group currently, in America) to block Christians from even being able to post Bible verse threads, and in the public, would oppose a person trying to live a Christian life; and to help rid America of Christianity. 

What a shame there are such hard-hearted individuals who cannot tolerate the idea that others have the right to believe in whom or what they choose; or to not believe in anyone or thing; and to top it off, must continually mock and agitate those believers who even try to speak to each other and others who enjoy the posts, and respond, and instead, try to disrupt a thread just because of intolerance.

You choose to be Atheist, or else dis-believe in anything - that is your right and choice, and you shouldn't have to answer to anyone, nor should you have to explain yourself.  It's the same way with those who choose to believe in God - it's their right and choice, and they should not have to answer or explain themselves.  Especially in a Bible verse thread, an inspirational thread, or uplifting quotes thread. 

On the other hand, people who don't like those threads do NOT have to enter them, can express their views maturely as the adults they are supposed to be, but the constant bashing is unnecessary.  The constant bashing is disrespectful, agitating, really pushing the boundary line on the "golden rule," and is being done deliberately just to provoke - in essence - trolling.  Then when others say something to that, then suddenly they're trying to "suppress" "dissenting views."  Ha!  What a lame excuse and cover up of words being used to get away with constant bashing.  Where is the adult in that...