Atheism

[SparrowHawk]

Atheists are intolerant of religions that are intolerant... :wacko:

------
From Athiests.org

-------
Edited by me.

B) xUT

Kinda like "Jumbo Shrimp" or "Government Worker"

 

[xUT]

Kinda like "Jumbo Shrimp" or "Government Worker"

Nope, the atheist cult is well organized.

Atheist Conferences:

DOH!

 

[Ms Tree]

I don't recall saying it was false......taken out of context at best. Still you can't explain why 27 members of Congress came to the same conclusion that the "quote" was insinuating and that to this day is the credit rating would not have been changed if Congress had made reductions similar to what the TP was looking for. You're still splitting hairs.

At least I have the balls to continue to post in that thread, when you get spanked, you and a few others have this sweet little habit of just looking the other way and letting it slide away slowly and surely. Hows that work for you.. 😛

Let me guess. The 27 members of Congress are republicans/TP who agree with the assumption being argued. Big surprise there. No I am not splitting hairs. If you want to to present an argument that you believe he meant this because of X,Y,Z that's fine. Present your argument and call it a day. What you did instead was present a quote attributed to an individual to support your argument that had Congress gone along with the TP, the S&P would not have down graded the rating. The quote was never made and your supposition is just that, supposition. This is what you fail to recognize. The bottom line is that you are using a lie to support your theory.

The post you made regarding the Atheist site is also a lie. The quote was never made. I posted what the person actually wrote. You used a lie to support your contention that atheist want to eradicate fundamental Christians. The poster never made any such comment.

Your last post in the thread was on Sep 2, mine was Aug 28. The horror of it all.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Nope, the atheist cult is well organized.

Atheist Conferences:

DOH!

OK work with me here!

How can you have a tax exempt religious organization that professes that there is no God? isn't the concept of a Godhead the basis of all religion? Wonder if we could get their tax exempt status revoked on that basis?

 

[Ms Tree]

American Atheists is a 'non profit' organization. Enjoying the tax benefits of any other religion.
So American Atheists are a religion(CULT) as defined by the US tax code.
Donations are tax deductible.

Strange it seems to me that one of the problems with religions and atheism was the tax code.

Oh well, just another fringe cult.

B) xUT

You are aware that religions are not the only organizations that are non-profit right? This Wiki link has over 1,500 listed. Reading trough the first few pages, most of them are not religious. So the American Atheist and religious institutions are getting the same non-profit benefits as all the other non-profits.

Can you please cite a source or provide a link to the tax code that defines the AA as a religious group?

 

[delldude]

Let me guess. The 27 members of Congress are republicans/TP who agree with the assumption being argued. Big surprise there. No I am not splitting hairs. If you want to to present an argument that you believe he meant this because of X,Y,Z that's fine. Present your argument and call it a day. What you did instead was present a quote attributed to an individual to support your argument that had Congress gone along with the TP, the S&P would not have down graded the rating. The quote was never made and your supposition is just that, supposition. This is what you fail to recognize. The bottom line is that you are using a lie to support your theory.

The post you made regarding the Atheist site is also a lie. The quote was never made. I posted what the person actually wrote. You used a lie to support your contention that atheist want to eradicate fundamental Christians. The poster never made any such comment.

Your last post in the thread was on Sep 2, mine was Aug 28. The horror of it all.

The 27 members of Congress relayed the point that S&P made it clearer than spring water that if spending cuts weren't made in the size TP was looking for, the credit rating would be dropped....what's so hard to comprehend there? The link I supplied you agreed with,and the Congressman who the misquote was atributed to even admitted 'that wasn't really what he said'........but it was implied clear as all hell and S&P dropped the rating....you can't comprehend that? What the hell does them being Republicans have to do with squat? You can show dems offering a plan anywhere near TP cuts that S&P would have approved?

Looks like the Blaze dropped the story.......looks like THEY were wrong....I retort, you decide...

The bottom line is that you are using a lie to support your theory.

Dude, I remember your posting all the BS regarding global warming and your love for the hockey stick graph....so go figure who's full of prune juice.

 

[Ms Tree]

OK work with me here!

How can you have a tax exempt religious organization that professes that there is no God? isn't the concept of a Godhead the basis of all religion? Wonder if we could get their tax exempt status revoked on that basis?

Religious belief is not a requirement for tax exempt status.

Big Brothers

Environment Oregon

Georgia Tech Foundation

If you see my link above you will see that most of the non-profits have nothing to do with religion. Atheism is just one of many non-religious non-profit.

 

[Ms Tree]

The 27 members of Congress relayed the point that S&P made it clearer than spring water that if spending cuts weren't made in the size TP was looking for, the credit rating would be dropped....what's so hard to comprehend there? The link I supplied you agreed with,and the Congressman who the misquote was atributed to even admitted 'that wasn't really what he said'........but it was implied clear as all hell and S&P dropped the rating....you can't comprehend that? What the hell does them being Republicans have to do with squat? You can show dems offering a plan anywhere near TP cuts that S&P would have approved?

Looks like the Blaze dropped the story.......looks like THEY were wrong....I retort, you decide...



Dude, I remember your posting all the BS regarding global warming and your love for the hockey stick graph....so go figure who's full of prune juice.

It's like arguing with a wall. The republicans agree with the theory because it supports their POV. There is nothing that the S&P has published that sides with the TP/republican platform.

Standard & Poor's takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue
measures that Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate
for putting the U.S.'s finances on a sustainable footing.

I only agreed with your link because I could not find that he did not say it. After it was proven false that all changed. You may believe it was implied but the quote from the S&P site says other wise.

I you post something,you own it. You used a BS source with out verification. That is on you, no one else.

I have asked you to provide a link showing my support for the graph that you have still failed to provide. I do not even remember ever seeing the graph till it was recently posted. You'll pardon my suspicion of anything you post. You do not have a lot of credibility in terms of accuracy as of late.

I'm done with this argument.

I

 

[delldude]

It's like arguing with a wall. The republicans agree with the theory because it supports their POV. There is nothing that the S&P has published that sides with the TP/republican platform.


I only agreed with your link because I could not find that he did not say it. After it was proven false that all changed. You may believe it was implied but the quote from the S&P site says other wise.

I you post something,you own it. You used a BS source with out verification. That is on you, no one else.

I have asked you to provide a link showing my support for the graph that you have still failed to provide. I do not even remember ever seeing the graph till it was recently posted. You'll pardon my suspicion of anything you post. You do not have a lot of credibility in terms of accuracy as of late.

I'm done with this argument.

I

My oh my..............there goes your integrity.
Why you hide behind your present handle.....everyone knows who you are.

 

[Ms Tree]

What does the fact that I used to be Garfield have to do with anything? Like I am concerned what you think about my integrity.

You are accusing my of supporting a graph but have provided no proof. You posted a quote by Mr Beer that he never said. You posted a link with a quote by an atheist blog that was never written. You believe that Obama is not a US citizen contrary to all the proof that is out there. And you are questioning my integrity? That's rich.

 

[delldude]

What does the fact that I used to be Garfield have to do with anything? Like I am concerned what you think about my integrity.

You are accusing my of supporting a graph but have provided no proof. You posted a quote by Mr Beer that he never said. You posted a link with a quote by an atheist blog that was never written. You believe that Obama is not a US citizen contrary to all the proof that is out there. And you are questioning my integrity? That's rich.

Now you've made me cry....... :blink:

 

[delldude]

Let me guess. The 27 members of Congress are republicans/TP who agree with the assumption being argued. Big surprise there. No I am not splitting hairs. If you want to to present an argument that you believe he meant this because of X,Y,Z that's fine. Present your argument and call it a day. What you did instead was present a quote attributed to an individual to support your argument that had Congress gone along with the TP, the S&P would not have down graded the rating. The quote was never made and your supposition is just that, supposition. This is what you fail to recognize. The bottom line is that you are using a lie to support your theory.

The post you made regarding the Atheist site is also a lie. The quote was never made. I posted what the person actually wrote. You used a lie to support your contention that atheist want to eradicate fundamental Christians. The poster never made any such comment.

Your last post in the thread was on Sep 2, mine was Aug 28. The horror of it all.

I have been victimized once again.......a gazillion news sites run with this story on S&P and publish it on the net and I am at fault for not sourcing their source...That's rich at best.

And your Atheist hero who wants to eradicate all Christians.......Duh.......he claims he 'only wants to eliminate the doctrine'.........Duh....if he wants to eliminate the doctrine, he must eliminate those who teach it for it to go away...............Duh.

Splitting hairs Pal......

 

[xUT]

OK work with me here!

How can you have a tax exempt religious organization that professes that there is no God? isn't the concept of a Godhead the basis of all religion? Wonder if we could get their tax exempt status revoked on that basis?

Nope, GOD not required. 😱

 

[xUT]

Now you've made me cry....... :blink:

Me too but I have a cat allergy....

 

[Ms Tree]

I have been victimized once again.......a gazillion news sites run with this story on S&P and publish it on the net and I am at fault for not sourcing their source...That's rich at best.

And your Atheist hero who wants to eradicate all Christians.......Duh.......he claims he 'only wants to eliminate the doctrine'.........Duh....if he wants to eliminate the doctrine, he must eliminate those who teach it for it to go away...............Duh.

Splitting hairs Pal......

So let me get this straight. You are accusing me of supporting some graph that has turned out to be inaccurate yet you are not to be held accountable for a quote on a site that you posted because your are too lazy to verify it? WTF?


Amazing. I post the actual quote for you and you still can get it right. He made no comment about eradicating Christians. Here is the quote again since you apparently cannot be bothered to look it up before you comment on it.

The dictionary defines intolerance as lack of toleration, an unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect. Sometimes, though, it becomes quite necessary. Intolerance toward beliefs and doctrines that serve only to promote hatred, bigotry and discrimination should be lauded, as should extremist points of view toward the eradication of these beliefs and doctrines.

No one is advocating the eradication of any one. Just the doctrines that promote hate discrimination and bigotry. If seeking accuracy is splitting hairs, then so be it. Guilty as charged. Far better than the alternative as far as I am concerned