1 5 6 7 8 | bottom
Quote# 96967

Hi - Not sure what you are saying . It says that God gave people the animals for food after the flood, which implies that they did not hunt or eat animals before the flood. Would you agree with that? Also, there was no capital punishment before the flood. Cain and Lamech, both murderers, went free. This could suggest that before the flood, human violence reached a level that exceeded that of today, which made the flood necessary. In this respect, the institution of capital punishment (a kind of cap on violence) after the flood seems to be linked with the promise never to destroy all life by flood again.

The extension of capital punishment to animals might suggest that some animals hunted and ate humans, before the flood. I am also interested in the word, tannin (pl. tanninim) which seems to refer to any land or sea animal that is capable of hunting humans. This could suggest that there is truth behind human legends of dragons and sea monsters.

Spud, Religion and Ethics 26 Comments [10/10/2013 3:30:05 AM]
Fundie Index: 24
Submitted By: NearlySane

Quote# 96964

They definitely can’t do it on their own now. For one, they have those tests and pass rates imposed by No Child Left Behind (or No Child Left Alone); these hold blacks to similar standards as whites and are a virtual mandate for cheating by principals and teachers. Standardized tests do have value for largely black schools, even more so than for white schools, but the standards should be changed, with basic skills reinforced throughout elementary and secondary school.

Secondly, black political groups aren’t motivated, and will probably never be motivated, to start a revolution in education not founded on racial grievances. There is also widespread parental indifference.

You ask, “Why must someone or some institution (government, e.g.) set something up for them?” Because it’s the right thing to do and blacks are unlikely to do it entirely on their own. I’m not a supporter of our public education system, but paternalistic education of some kind, education not founded on white guilt and not indulgent of lawlessness or misbehavior, makes sense for blacks. A libertarian approach isn’t reasonable for all groups. That’s a vague answer, but until we let the idea that racial differences matter, in education especially, we can’t work on the details.

I should add that all education is not worthy of the name unless it takes into consideration the totality of the person. That is as true for blacks as for whites. Modern state-run education denies the spiritual dimension and the immortality of the soul.

Laura Wood, The Thinking Housewife 38 Comments [10/9/2013 3:32:07 AM]
Fundie Index: 32

Quote# 96955

The persecution of practising Christians in Britain has been a recurring theme of this column.
Publicly-funded bodies seem to take a perverse delight in targeting staff with a strong Christian faith.
‘Celebrating diversity’ is our new State religion. We must accommodate all beliefs and, in the case of extremist Islam, tolerate practices which most people in this country find alien and abhorrent.
If you’re Muslim, special prayer rooms will be set aside for you. Hospital canteens will force everyone to eat halal meat. Feel free to wear the veil, madam. If you’re a Pagan, you’ll be granted time off work to celebrate the Summer Solstice.
But if you’re Christian, you praise the Lord at your peril. Take that crucifix off now, or find another job.
This week, a Christian doctor lost his appeal against dismissal for sending a prayer to his colleagues by email. Consultant paediatrician David Drew thought the 16th century prayer, To Give And Not To Count The Cost, by St Ignatius Loyola, would be motivational.
[...]
Dr Drew claims that his bosses at Walsall Manor Hospital were looking for an excuse to get rid of him because he had consistently accused them of putting patient safety at risk.
He’s almost certainly right, so why did they choose to sack him over his ‘motivational’ email? Simple: they knew that a devout Christian doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of convincing a tribunal that he’s been the victim of religious discrimination.
The corridors of the industrial tribunals system are littered with the corpses of Christians sacrificed on the altar of ‘diversity’.
Members of tribunals are trained to be concerned only with upholding the rights of perceived ‘persecuted minorities’. Their verdicts are guided by the doctrines of ‘sexism’, ‘racism’ and a litany of fashionable ‘phobias’.
Adherents of ‘minority’ religions will always get the benefit of the doubt. But Christians are on a hiding to nothing, since they represent the ‘oppressors

Richard Littlejohn, The Daily Mail 46 Comments [10/9/2013 3:29:35 AM]
Fundie Index: 33
Submitted By: Bleep

Quote# 96952

"If a woman drives a car, not out of pure necessity, that could have negative physiological impacts as functional and physiological medical studies show that it automatically affects the ovaries and pushes the pelvis upwards," Sheikh Lohaidan told the news website Sabq.org.

"That is why we find those who regularly drive have children with clinical problems of varying degrees

Sheikh Lohaidan, BBC News 46 Comments [10/9/2013 3:28:56 AM]
Fundie Index: 55
Submitted By: Ryan

Quote# 96945

When the Jews were freed from Egypt, God had them walk for 40 years to get to Palestine, as far est as what is now Iraq and then through Jordan. The trip would take a few months if they had walked straight from Egypt, through the Sinai to Palestine. Why did God insist on this? Commentaries say that he understood that former slaves could not handle freedom so a generation or two had to pass so that only people with a history of freedom entered Palestine.

We freed the blacks without insisting that they bear the responsibilities of freedom, so they don't act responsibly. And now we have made them wards of the state, dependent on gov for everything. They cannot and will not ever be free.

curmed52, IMDb 43 Comments [10/8/2013 4:59:23 PM]
Fundie Index: 44
Submitted By: Kevin Klawitter

Quote# 96943

[Emphasis added]
“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”

-- Neil deGrasse Tyson*


Not totally true

How so?

Because nothing could never 100% true there's lies in everything if there a lie in science then none of its true and i don't care of that makes sense or not

Starkiller101, Nationstates 49 Comments [10/8/2013 3:27:44 AM]
Fundie Index: 59
Submitted By: zyr

Quote# 96939

Bill O'Reilly has written a new book about Jesus. The basic argument of the book is that Jesus died because he interfered with the taxation-heavy Roman revenue stream. The reason the Jews eagerly anticipated the Messiah, writes O’Reilly, is, “When that moment arrives, Rome will be defeated and their lives will be free of taxation and want.”

The Fox News anchor explains in an interview on CBS' "60 Minutes" that one night he awoke with the title of the book in his head. He says he believes he got that message from the Holy Spirit.

Bill O'Reilly, Politico 51 Comments [10/8/2013 3:25:48 AM]
Fundie Index: 42

Quote# 96938

It is a contradiction that an atheist can believe in philosophy.
It does not make sense.
Philosophy is love of wisdom.
Wisdom is not only knowledge.
Wisdom is also establish our consciousness within the core of supreme consciousness and that is to become one with God.
Why wisdom can not be achieve right here within this universal arena?
How can be possible to achieve any real knowledge within a finite arena in which everything is moving and changing all the time and in which there is no progress?
You achieve something with one hand and loose something else with the other.
You can go from point A to point B with your car and that save you a lot of time but at the same time your car pollute the air, your legs and your body are getting weaker because you sit on your arse instead of walking and there is the danger that you can die in a traffic accident.
You show me something that come without the negative effect and i will cover you in gold.
In other words all we do within this universe is done in order to stay afloat not to progress and where there is not progress there is no wisdom.
So wisdom has got to be found elsewhere but that require a different approach once you get rid of the idea dogma that a supreme consciousness is not there.

Enrico, AtheistForums.org 31 Comments [10/8/2013 3:25:35 AM]
Fundie Index: 26
Submitted By: Stimbo

Quote# 96937

[a judge in New Jersey has said the state must allow gays to marry]

This is nothing new. It's been tried before. About 3000 years ago. I'm afraid we will suffer the same fate.

John Latta, USA Today 35 Comments [10/8/2013 3:25:29 AM]
Fundie Index: 30
Submitted By: Nemo

Quote# 96936

(from the article: "Christian groups sue to stop Kansas schools from adopting science standards")

Brad Dachus of Pacific Justice complained that is a violation of a child’s rights to teach them that Creationism isn’t the truth.

“(I)t’s an egregious violation of the rights of Americans to subject students — as young as five — to an authoritative figure such as a teacher who essentially tells them that their faith is wrong,” he said.

He maintained that to teach science “that is devoid of any alternative which aligns with the belief of people of faith is just wrong.”

COPE, Inc. said that the science standards have a “concealed Orthodoxy” that is bent on undermining the views of the faithful.

“The Orthodoxy is not religiously neutral as it permits only materialistic/atheistic answers to ultimate religious questions,” said the group’s statement. The group maintained that questions like “Where do we come from?” can only be answered honestly by religious dogma.

The statement went on to say that “teaching the materialistic/atheistic ideas to primary school children whose minds are susceptible to blindly accepting them as true” is unconstitutional and dangerous, and therefore the new science standards must be stopped.

Pacific Justice Institute, COPE, Inc., Raw Story 36 Comments [10/8/2013 3:25:23 AM]
Fundie Index: 42
Submitted By: Deep Search

Quote# 96934

Heliocentricity is not a logically plausible (let alone irrefutable) theory that is based on scientific data but it's actually, purely based on a series of assumptions that were built-up over the last 200 years. For example many (but not all) of the assertions regarding astronomical distances between celestial bodies are invented and put into calculations on the apriori assumption that the earth must be revolving around the sun. But then at the same time, these assumed distances have another function whereby they are deployed as some sort of petitio principii device to indicate that the sun must be at the center because of that distance! Go figure.

Here is one example of how it's done: we are told that sun is too big to revolve around the earth. But wait a minute, isn't the sun's size determined in the first place by assuming how big it must have to be in order to allow a heliocentric premise? Yes it is! Go figure that. Other needed assumptions include:
Lorenzo de Medici

The bendover earth assumption (the alleged 'tilt' of the earth's axis, a desperately needed heliocentric variable that has no basis in the physical world where the sun simply spirals from the Tropic of Cancer to the Tropic of Capricorn annually. Both of these tropic latitude lines are not tilted - they are at a 0° angle (= parallel) to the equator. The word "tropic" itself comes from the Greek term tropos, meaning turn, referring to the fact that the sun "turns back" at these lines that aren't tilted in any way,
The earth supposedly tittering around the sun at various speed levels (it orbits at a faster speed at one time, and then it goes relatively slower at another - then back faster again) but somehow, all this alleged speed-change remains unnoticeable),
The moon also being dragged along exactly at those same speed levels (100% complete synchronization with the wobbly earth despite being hundreds of thousands of miles away from it(!) Now how about that?,
Even atmospheric gas (the air) being attached to the earth's surface (again completely synchronized but somehow (simultaneously) free-flowing enough to blow in every direction). These are just samples of the never shown, never detected, never scientifically observed absurdities that are required to save the appearances of the heliocentric model.



abafte, Restricted Area 35 Comments [10/8/2013 3:24:48 AM]
Fundie Index: 51

Quote# 96933

The Greeks wanted to position the objects in the sky in its right place within the celestial sphere. In other words, they recognized the universe as being geocentric and accounted for celestial bodies' motions using elaborate gears around a point that itself moves in a circle around the earth. Mr. Wright found evidence that the Antikythera mechanism would have been able to reproduce the motions of the sun and moon accurately, as well as the movements of the planets Mercury and Venus. Professor Michael Edmunds of Cardiff University who led a study of the mechanism is reported to have said: "This device is just extraordinary, the only thing of its kind. The design is beautiful, the astronomy is exactly right. The way the mechanics aredesigned just makes your jaw drop. Whoever has done this has done it extremely carefully (...) in terms of historic and scarcity value, I have to regard this mechanism as being more valuable than the Mona Lisa". The value of this mechanism lies in the fact that astronomy was essential for navigation. And it is improvements in navigation that resulted in something that directly and fundamentally caused the scientific revolution:the age of discovery or the age of exploration. That period from the early 15th century and continuing into the early 17th century, during which Europeans explored the world by ocean, searching for trading partners and various goods, is responsible for the rapid advancement of technological acumen of the wider society. Therefore it is not the theoretical heliocentric arguments of Copernicus or Galileo that caused this - they were the products of the age, not the cause of it.



This demonstrates how the empirical application of geocentricity, that is, the advance of navigation during the Renaissance period, triggered the age of exploration, that in turn resulted in the advancement of the more wider field of science. Thank God that the explorers and discoverers did not indulge in heliocentric humbuggery, because had they did that, they would have not discovered continents and trading routes, but would have been lost and clueless for every single distance, on every single trip!

abafte, Restricted Area 21 Comments [10/8/2013 3:21:50 AM]
Fundie Index: 24

Quote# 96931

If Islam in its purest form is indeed the enemy, then what do you propose doing? If Islam does indeed pose an existential threat to Western civilization, don't talk about it. Do something. If they want a war, give them a war. If they burn a church, burn a mosque. If they kill a pastor in Oman, shoot a mullah in San Diego. It's that simple. Respond to the aggressors with greater force, and only then can you hope to survive. Sun Tzu understood it, Jesus of Nazareth understood it...

Nemo, Patheos.com 39 Comments [10/8/2013 3:21:16 AM]
Fundie Index: 28
Submitted By: solomongrundy

Quote# 96928

They all look like they are gay themselves. Not that there is anything actually wrong with that but how can the human race survive without the necessary reproduction cycle? Nature intended for us to be male & female partners in order to reproduce. If people prefer to be be homosexual that is their choice but to purposely not give foster children to heterosexual male/female christian couples is literally against the laws of nature. But of course the REAL PROBLEM IS TAKING THE CHILDREN AWAY FROM THEIR REAL PARENTS TO BEGIN WITH. DESTROY THE FAMILY IS THE GOAL WHY CAN'T THE PRESS REPORT THAT?

Sharon Joyce-Burns , WND 30 Comments [10/8/2013 3:20:46 AM]
Fundie Index: 35

Quote# 96927

it is NOT about being "cured" - they took it off the books because now they have decided to make it "normal" and now "straight' is being put on the books as "abnormal" - We are in a backwards Satanic world now and Satan's time has come to rule for a short time - and this is hwat you are seeing. Everything is reverse of "normal" as we knew it when God was welcomed on Earth. God told us this time would be like this in these last days of this era. Good would be bad and bad would be good. And that is what you are seeing. Is 5:20 & Job 17:12 It is one of the signs of the age that God told us to look for. Wars all over the sworld and disasters in rapid seccession, Quakes in great numbers - all are signs we are to recognize for the end of the age. The OWG is the ultimate sign, and we are in it ! It is Satan's rule with his demons (fallen angels) and it is reverse from reality, and we are seeing it.

Little Bright Feather, WND 24 Comments [10/8/2013 3:18:48 AM]
Fundie Index: 22

Quote# 96926

Demons can enter a person via sex and they know it and that is what they want. Anything perverted to scoff at God is what they do ! This is how they steal innocent souls for Satan.

Little Bright Feather, WND 25 Comments [10/8/2013 3:18:34 AM]
Fundie Index: 22

Quote# 96925

I had a friend tell me this today so I shall relate it to you. Let us make a deal? We take all of the gay people and put them on an island, we take all of the lesbians and put them on another island, we take all of the transgender people and put them on another island. Now we have all of the normal people live where they are now living. Now we do not want the perverts to think they are discriminated against so the normal people will even give them housing and food. Then we meet back together after 100 years and check up on each other and see who is OK, who is surviving and who is succeeding. Any takers? Some of you are yelling foul play. But it cannot be foul play because it is the natural process that is taking hold here. You are only yelling foul play because you did not get your way.

paulrph1 , WND 39 Comments [10/8/2013 3:18:20 AM]
Fundie Index: 31

Quote# 96924

Shaming isn’t the total panacea, but it must be an integral part of the solution. There’s no better example of how shame can change perceptions than smoking, which was once considered cool but is now viewed with utter disdain. Sure, cigarettes are expensive, but that’s not why smoking is down. It’s because society made a conscious effort to shame smokers. Try lighting up in a bar with co-workers, and you receive dagger-like stares. Do it outside, and people immediately move away, because smoking is regarded as disgusting, and therefore, the smoker must be, too.

Smoking kills, and we have no problem pointing out that as a deterrent. Yet so does obesity, and we still hesitate to mention it. Just as non-smokers are picking up the tab for the massive medical costs related to smoking, non-overweight people are subsidizing the obese since it is “discriminatory” to charge differently for health care (though a section of the Affordable Care Act would change that).

But shaming is now taboo, and no one is ever at fault or accountable for his actions. Consider:

• It used to be, when a student received a detention, they weren’t just shamed in front of their classmates. They knew they had to tell their parents, which would invariably trigger another punishment.

Contrast that to the reaction this week to a New Jersey principal’s letter to parents about pictures of their underage children on Facebook holding alcohol bottles. Instead of thanking the principal for bringing that situation to their attention, a number of parents ripped him.

• Airlines have attempted to charge double for obese passengers whose girth extends beyond the armrests. While this is clearly commonsense, since not doing so penalizes paying passengers of normal weight, such policies are met with scorn and even lawsuits by those lobbying for obesity-without-consequence.

• And since it would be considered “discriminatory” to have an obese-only section in stadiums, seats are being made wider to accommodate overly plump posteriors. And when seats are wider, there are fewer of them. Who pays? You do. The same way that the non-obese eat the cost of new toilets that must be installed with ground supports, as the standard wall-mounted commodes can no longer bear the weight of America’s fat brigade.

We have coddled ourselves so much that we have shamed using shame. As a result, people have become clueless to their appearance. Sure, what’s under the skin matters, and no one should feel that obese people are bad, but what’s on the outside counts, too. Or at least it should. But go to any beach, and count how many linebacker-sized women are showcasing themselves in bikinis. Ditto for men whose guts reach the next block. Since they all have mirrors, one can only assume that shame is simply not a part of their lives.

Should we have scarlet letters for the obese? Of course not, since there is no problem identifying them. But we should employ shame to shed light on an issue that affects us all, in the same way that some judges order drunk drivers to place “Convicted DUI” bumper stickers on their cars.

And speaking of cars, how shameful is it that overweight people are not just guzzling food, but fuel? A recent report calculated that one billion gallons of gasoline are wasted every year (one percent of the nation’s total) just to haul Americans’ extra pounds. And given that the average American weighs 24 more pounds than in 1960, airlines are using roughly 175 million more gallons of jet fuel per year just to accommodate the overweight. That’s downright shameful.

And if not shame, then what? Do we tax fast food? Soda? Candy? Do we regulate portion size? No. Not only are such ideas preposterous and unenforceable, but they are tactics, not strategy. It’s time to tip the scales against obesity and solve the problem.

Otherwise, we will soon find out that the “elephant in the room” isn’t a pachyderm at all.

It’s an average American.

Chris Freind , The Philly Post 52 Comments [10/7/2013 3:46:13 AM]
Fundie Index: 6

Quote# 96923

Are women equal to men in ability? When considering whether women are equal to men in ability, ask yourself this question, ladies. Would you rather be shipwrecked on a desert island with a man or another woman? Of course, we women have our strengths. When properly trained, we are good at nurturing children. We can be content making our homes so long as no other woman is whispering rebellious poison in our ears. But are we generally equal to men in ability? No. Women are generally inferior to men in ability. On average we are smaller, weaker, invent almost nothing, produce almost nothing…except for children, that is. We are able to do this one thing that men cannot do; in every other area, we are inferior and it is merely an illusion propped up by artifice that we are equal to men.

If the welfare state which exists due to taxes disproportionately paid by men were to disintegrate, the myth that women are not inferior to men would quickly evaporate. And do you know what? That fact does not bother me! It does not bother me that I am generally inferior to my husband. Rather, that fact fills me with a profound gratitude for his presence in my life and makes me acutely aware of how fortunate I am to be under his protection.

Sunshine Mary, Sunshine Mary and the Dragon 61 Comments [10/7/2013 3:46:06 AM]
Fundie Index: 46
Submitted By: EselavaR

Quote# 96919

Most avowed feminists and feminist leaders are dog ugly, so that part of the alliance rings true. But what if it was beta males, rather than alpha males, who were the other prime movers of Boomer feminism? (Boomer feminism was the beginning of the really warped variety of feminism that supplanted suffrage and Prohibition.) Did beta males enjoin the feminist sabotage of civilization because they thought it would cramp the style of alpha males? The betas probably didn’t grasp the long-term consequences of their project, but crippling their competition was the short-term goal they had in mind when they allied with the femfreaks. They were probably thinking (beneath the layers of socially presentable equalese), “Aha, elevating women to positions of power will help kick out those entrenched alpha males and level the male playing field. More poosy for us!”

Poor pathetic beta male feminists. Little did they realize that helping women become economically self-sufficient and freed from the “slavery” of marriage allowed them to ignore betas for the sexy alphas promising nothing but a good time. The one bit of leverage beta males bring to the sexual market table — their emotional and financial provisions — they trashed in a fit of spite against the jocks they hated in high school.

CH, Chateau Heartiste 38 Comments [10/7/2013 3:41:51 AM]
Fundie Index: 24

Quote# 96913

You may think that curing cancer can bring nothing but happiness. People near death can be given life and family members can stay happy. Well, I hope this changes your mind.

Before you start calling me a heartless bastard, I have lost a lot of family members to cancer, and my beliefs are unchanged by this.

The world's population is constantly growing. A few years ago we passed 7 billion* people and it is still increasing. We all know about the recession and it is hitting everyone very hard. Many people living in poverty, starvation, homelessness, bankruptcy etc. The odds of getting cancer are 1 in 3 which means that a large amount of the population have a high chance of dying. Notice that even with these odds, the population is still increasing. Anywho, overpopulation is what is causing the recession. Countries are trying to spread the same amount of money over a constantly growing amount of people. It is not possible to do this and keep everyone happy. Imagine dipping a brush in paint once. Now try imagining painting a giant wall with this amount of paint. It simply cannot be done. Either a small part of the wall will get a LOT OF PAINT while the rest gets none, or a large amount will get a very thin amount, while the rest gets none. Now imagine the wall getting bigger. This is because the population is growing. Now if cancer is cured, the wall will grow 33.3% faster.
Some people think that money is pointless and that it just causes greed. For some people, yes, it does. Everybody knows this. The fact that money is a big part of our lives and also survival, we need it. If cancer is cured, more families will live in poverty. More people will live on the street. More people will die. Don't forget that more people will be out of work. If this happens, countries will need to get more loans, putting them more in debt, fucking the residents over even more.
Another reason that cancer should not be cured, is that nature will create another disease; another virus. This virus can be even more deadly or just as deadly as cancer. This means that finding cures for diseases will never end. Cancer is nature's way of trying to stop overpopulation and humans need to stop fighting nature. Tons of money is poured into cancer research. This money could be used to help people in other countries who are starving, or solving the energy crisis. This money could go to better use.
Basically, curing cancer will increase overpopulation, putting more countries and people in poverty, which can result in death and higher debts. Humans need to stop fighting nature as it will just create another disease that will be just as deadly.


Muzzles56, Blockland 43 Comments [10/7/2013 3:36:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 23

Quote# 96908

But let's put that aside for the moment and consider a (non-biblical) scenario in which God alone hardened Pharaoh's heart. Suppose that God in this instance chose to override Pharaoh's freedom of choice. Would that prove that people in general have no freedom of choice? Of course not. You have committed the hasty generalization fallacy. If God wants to override the freedom of choice that He gave people in the first place, He can do that. (I'm not suggesting that He does, only that He can.) But how does that in any way suggest that people don't have freedom of choice at other times? So your argument just doesn't make any sense. In the Christian worldview, people have some degree of freedom of choice. In the secular worldview, what one chemical accident does to another is predetermined by the laws of physics.

Jason Lisle, Jason Lisle 29 Comments [10/6/2013 8:10:38 AM]
Fundie Index: 20
Submitted By: Tony

Quote# 96906

However, the left is likely at some point to flip from opposing voluntary Galtonism to demanding mandatory re-engineering of human nature. Feminists, for example, will decide that instead of parents designing their daughters to appeal to men, the government should redesign men to better appreciate women like themselves. This logic will also revitalize collectivism. Socialism failed, in part, because it conflicts with essential human nature. So, why not change human nature to make Marxism possible? And what better response to the intractable fact of human biodiversity than to eliminate inequality at the genetic level? What could be more equal than a world of clones?

Steve Sailer, iSteve 34 Comments [10/6/2013 8:08:33 AM]
Fundie Index: 26

Quote# 96905

Progressives and Third Way centrists are likely to initially insist on outlawing human genetic engineering. Already, professional activists for the disabled worry that genetic engineering will put them out of business by reducing the number of disabled peoples. Feminists and gay male leaders will also soon grow concerned that allowing parents to select embryos will leave them with fewer followers. This is because free market Galtonism will increase the gap between the sexes. Parents will select for square-jawed, ambitious, high testosterone, first-born sons, and lovely, nurturing, high-oestrogen, latter-born daughters. Why? What parents want most from their children are grandchildren, and high-achieving sons, such as business executives, produce far more grandchildren on average than high-achieving daughters. Further, parents will want loving daughters to take care of them in their old age.

Thus, boys will become more masculine and girls more feminine. This will probably reduce the number of homosexuals. Although you are not supposed to say this, scientific studies have confirmed the obvious observation that gay men are more effeminate on average than straight men, just as lesbians tend to be more butch than straight women. And since the major feminist groups, like the National Organization for Women, are to a large extent fronts for lesbians, libertarian eugenics fundamentally threatens institutionalized feminism.

Steve Sailer, iSteve 34 Comments [10/6/2013 8:08:21 AM]
Fundie Index: 23

Quote# 96901

Religion is not a belief and it is not based on belief. Religion is an experience of the divine in oneself, the universe and in God.

Atheism, on the other hand, is a belief system, and every one of its beliefs is either based on logical fallacies or is unproven because there is no objective reality to support it. Athesit 'beliefs' are merely the collection of their preferences, biases, idle wishes and fears.

In saying that religion is a belief you are stating something that you have not proven. This the logical fallacy known as circulus in demonstrando.

In addition, considering how many times atheist make this erroneous claim they are also guilty to committing another logical fallacy, argumentum ad nauseam.

Plus any atheist who attempts to use this fallacious statement because other atheist morons have also used it, is also guilty of a third logical fallacy, argumentum ad numerum.

So, line up you atheists and fess up to how many of these logical fallacies you are guilty of whenever you say that religion is a belief.

omprem, Atheism vs Christianity 37 Comments [10/6/2013 5:40:25 AM]
Fundie Index: 41
Submitted By: David
1 5 6 7 8 | top