Cowards

[jcribb16]

Coward's because no one will end the madness of excessive commenting on things that seem to just go round and round.

You must mean like xtians do; basing their specious religious opinions on "blind faith" which is based on "belief" which is based on blind faith ... around and around.

People have the right to believe and base their belief on whatever evidence or otherwise. 

I've already stated the same; just as those who oppose such specious religious beliefs have the same option to dissent.  'Believers' do not have any "right" to unopposed superstitious beliefs.
 

They do not have to answer to you ...

True, even when they post such in a publically-accessible forum, they don't "have to answer to" anyone.  It's also true that once such private beliefs become public, (because the believers themselves posted their superstitions), otehrs who choose to can post opposing viewpoints.  You 'believers' have the same option to not respond as otehrs have to respond.  Your ongoing attempts to restrict/censor/suppress such responses are repressive and rejected as such.

Your ongoing attempts to restrict, censure, suppress, try and provoke emotional responses, try and accuse others of being irrational and delusional, for believing how they wish and using their freedom of speech and expression, are repressive and rejected as such.

[falcon9]

Coward's because no one will end the madness of excessive commenting on things that seem to just go round and round.

You must mean like xtians do; basing their specious religious opinions on "blind faith" which is based on "belief" which is based on blind faith ... around and around.

People have the right to believe and base their belief on whatever evidence or otherwise. 

I've already stated the same; just as those who oppose such specious religious beliefs have the same option to dissent.  'Believers' do not have any "right" to unopposed superstitious beliefs.
 

They do not have to answer to you ...

True, even when they post such in a publically-accessible forum, they don't "have to answer to" anyone.  It's also true that once such private beliefs become public, (because the believers themselves posted their superstitions), otehrs who choose to can post opposing viewpoints.  You 'believers' have the same option to not respond as otehrs have to respond.  Your ongoing attempts to restrict/censor/suppress such responses are repressive and rejected as such.

... try and accuse others of being irrational and delusional, for believing how they wish and using their freedom of speech and expression ...

Those contentions have been substantiated by the religious adherents posting irrationally and delusionally about religious 'beliefs' which lack any rational/logical basis and rely completely upon blind faith.  Just as such adherents have the option to hold irrational and delusional superstitious beliefs, so too does the Constitution protect the option of others to reject what the irrational are promoting with dissenting logic which refutes it.

[jcribb16]

Coward's because no one will end the madness of excessive commenting on things that seem to just go round and round.

You must mean like xtians do; basing their specious religious opinions on "blind faith" which is based on "belief" which is based on blind faith ... around and around.

People have the right to believe and base their belief on whatever evidence or otherwise. 

I've already stated the same; just as those who oppose such specious religious beliefs have the same option to dissent.  'Believers' do not have any "right" to unopposed superstitious beliefs.
 

They do not have to answer to you ...

True, even when they post such in a publically-accessible forum, they don't "have to answer to" anyone.  It's also true that once such private beliefs become public, (because the believers themselves posted their superstitions), otehrs who choose to can post opposing viewpoints.  You 'believers' have the same option to not respond as otehrs have to respond.  Your ongoing attempts to restrict/censor/suppress such responses are repressive and rejected as such.

... try and accuse others of being irrational and delusional, for believing how they wish and using their freedom of speech and expression ...

Those contentions have been substantiated by the religious adherents posting irrationally and delusionally about religious 'beliefs' which lack any rational/logical basis and rely completely upon blind faith.  Just as such adherents have the option to hold irrational and delusional superstitious beliefs, so too does the Constitution protect the option of others to reject what the irrational are promoting with dissenting logic which refutes it.

The point, though, is you don't just give your opinion.  You still have to be condescending and mocking using words such as, "irrationally and delusionally; lack any rational/logical basis; rely completely upon blind faith; irrational and delusional superstitious beliefs;" and more.  You are still being judgmental and minding the business of what they believe, by continuing to try and make them look irrational, delusional, etc. 

Sure, we all can express views, but we still have the conscious duty, as law abiding citizens of this country, of promoting kindness, respect, and common courtesy, to others, even when our views differ.  Who are you to think you have the right to lam-bast a belief someone else has just because you don't believe that way?   They do not deserve those put down words for something they believe and that is their business.  I respect your dis-belief choice, even if I don't agree totally with it, and do not call you names and try to make you look like an idiot for something you feel strongly about.  There is no need for cut downs like you enjoy doing.

The Constitution protects, yes, but it's not intended to protect hatefulness and hate words for others like that.

[falcon9]

The point, though, is you don't just give your opinion. 

I've already made that point in providing the logical reasoning which substantiates the contentions that a belief, (any belief, not just a religious one), without evidence is empty and irrational.  No valid counter-argument which substantiates a contention that a belief lacking evidence is rational has been presented, (an empty counter-claim does not constitute evidence).

... using words such as, "irrationally and delusionally; lack any rational/logical basis; rely completely upon blind faith; irrational and delusional superstitious beliefs;" and more.  You are still being judgmental and minding the business of what they believe, by continuing to try and make them look irrational, delusional, etc. 

See reply above. Those religious claims are irrational because they lack rationality.  They are delusional because they lack evidence and are instead, based upon blind faith alone, (which circularly lacks substantiation).  I've never denied that such assessments are accurately 'judging' because I'm not under any religious injunction about judging, (actually, neither are religious zealots who 'judge' my judgements while claiming that only their hypothetical 'deity' which lacks evidence of existing has the "right" to judge).
 

Who are you to think you have the right to lam-bast a belief someone else has just because you don't believe that way?   

I am someone who has the same option to oppose religious superstitious nonsense as those who post have to hold irrational and delusional religious beliefs.  The U.S. Constitution does not provide for the type of suppression, censorship, restriction and repression of opposing viewpoints which you've been promoting for months. 

[ajami]

I only have one stupid question.  WHY, WHY is everyone responding and giving falcon what he wants, ATTENTION.

[falcon9]

I only have one stupid question.  WHY, WHY is everyone responding and giving falcon what he wants, ATTENTION.

Just because some xtian fundies ignorantly misuse the "ignore" button to not ignore doesn't mean anyone else has to to, nor does it mean that such fundies get to dictate whether anyone replies to any post.

[vmcutshall]

How did this become about people and what they write? When I first read this it was about a thread that someone created or so I thought.

[falcon9]

This thread was started by a passive-aggressive xtian coward in an attempt to troll non-xtians and control response posts.  Objections to such ensued and here we are now.

How did this become about people and what they write? When I first read this it was about a thread that someone created or so I thought.

[jcribb16]

This thread was started by a passive-aggressive xtian coward in an attempt to troll non-xtians and control response posts.  Objections to such ensued and here we are now.

How did this become about people and what they write? When I first read this it was about a thread that someone created or so I thought.

Name-calling gets you nowhere.  You provoke responses and then question why people say things they do.  If you are going to continue provoking Christians, you must toughen up and take the heat...

[falcon9]

Nothing stops a xtian fundie from excessive drinking or, drug use, right?

... gets you nowhere.  You provoke ...  If you are going to continue provoking Christians ...

[jcribb16]

Nothing stops a xtian fundie from excessive drinking or, drug use, right?

... gets you nowhere.  You provoke ...  If you are going to continue provoking Christians ...

This Christian does not drink nor use drugs.  If you do that to extreme, you are just as guilty as the next person.  You should really take heed of your words, because you are going to trip yourself up with that haughty attitude, and fall flat on your face.

[falcon9]

This Christian does not drink nor use drugs.  If you do that to extreme, you are just as guilty as the next person.  You should really take heed of your words, because you are going to trip yourself up with that haughty attitude, and fall flat on your face.

Then it's perhaps your senility, "prescription meds", or faith-blindness as the root cause of your irrationalities ... who knows?  Certainly not some unsubstantiated "g-d".

[jcribb16]

This Christian does not drink nor use drugs.  If you do that to extreme, you are just as guilty as the next person.  You should really take heed of your words, because you are going to trip yourself up with that haughty attitude, and fall flat on your face.

Then it's perhaps your senility, "prescription meds", or faith-blindness as the root cause of your irrationalities ... who knows?  Certainly not some unsubstantiated "g-d".

Actually, it is none of your business about my senility, prescription meds, or "faith-blindness," now, is it.  Remember the kid saying "It takes one to know one?"  You should be careful calling names like this - especially insinuating things about my senility.  Look in your own heart, falcon9, and clean up your own rottenness before trying to mess with mine.   

[falcon9]

Actually, it is none of your business about my senility, prescription meds, or "faith-blindness," now, is it.  

True, carry on being irrational then, whatever the cause.

[hitch0403]

And of course with you we know its your wheelchair and radishes