Roger Ebert is a Fundamentalist Atheist?

We just go them that .00001% further. :evilgrin:

In fact, the funny thing is, he's not even an atheist, as his own writings and movie reviews would demonstrate. Yet, given the opinion in this essay, according to many on DU, he would be a foaming-at-the-mouth Christian-hater.

but I think he makes the point nicely about how the whole miracle thing is insulting to the people who worked really hard and risked their lives to accomplish this amazing acheivement.
The last few years, the intelligence and insight of Mr. Ebert has become much noticeable outside of simple movie reviews. The man is very smart.

has turned Roger into one of our most engaging at-large essayists. Interestingly, he's also a lapsed Catholic, which is the closest thing Christianity has to a Secular Jew. IOW, though he may be an atheist, he can make observations from within the fold, and any priest (rabbi) who doesn't like it can piss off.

If that is a "fundamentalist", we need to look again at our use of the word.

I still laugh out loud when I see believers attempting to paint non-believers with their own monikers.

someone on DU posted basically the same thing and was accused of being an christian hating bigot. I think people need to be less sensitive about criticism of religion and understanding that when atheists criticize relgion or religious beliefs they aren't trying to be insensitive assholes but to make some valid, CONSTRUCTIVE points.

The hypocrisy astounds me.

of atheistic points of view. I criticize atheism on a regular basis simply because I see the epistemology(ies) used to justify atheist POV's as narrow and exclusive. Rationalism has never been the exclusive domain of atheism.

you attack atheism on a regular basis because you refuse to see the difference between it and Communism.

and his article was reasonable and non-insulting. I like reading Ebert, and his views on religion, though a little different than mine, are completely understandable.

I understand also why people might take umbrage at calling the mine rescue a miracle, but I don't understand why they care all that much. Some people say things automatically without really thinking about it in too much depth. I don't think I ever said: "That's a miracle!" about this situation, but I have said that it was miraculous that I found parking on a busy street in Manhattan at 4 pm once. Do I really think God had anything to do with my parking? Of course not. It's, for many people, colloquialistic language that means little more than "WOW! Can't believe that actually happened."

that the hand of god intervened, and THAT is absurd in every respect.

I was more impressed with how people from all over actually worked together to get those men out. I'm glad that they are safe.

And that is why calling it something else, something attributed to a god, is so repugnant.

More fully, he states: In a year of sadness, it was a blessed moment. One can sympathize with those who called it a miracle, but actually it was the result of perfectly understandable engineering techniques.

That sentence alone shows sympathy for believers. Something that is missing from the writing of people who are sometimes labeled fundamentalist atheist.

Further, he writes:



He recognizes that Christian theology is based on reason, once its premise is accepted. Such statements would place him outside of the people that are sometimes called fundamntalist atheist.

once you accept that there is a God. But that leap is not one of reason which he also admits in his essay.

He, in essence is saying, I understand why they would call it a miracle but they are wrong. And he doesn't eve say that HE is sympathetic but that "one" could sympathize with them. So the inclusion of the word "sympathy" is all that is needed? Check. I'll use that forever in the future and should no longer be called a fundamentalist atheist.

"Though one can sympathize with those that need to have a god in their life, their belief is no different than a child's need to believe in Santa."

It should not be that difficult of a concept to grasp.

Ebert's sentence is just a little more subtle in his statement.

"One can sympathize with those who called it a miracle, but actually it was the result of perfectly understandable engineering techniques."

He doesn't say that he sympathizes with them, only that "one" could sympathize. And then goes on to say that it wasn't a miracle. We are talking about minor differences in tone between what you say is OK and what turned into a flamefest in GD.

but when someone posted basically the same thing in GD, they were told they were getting their "panties in a wad" over nothing or being insensitive assholes or being christian hating bigots. In FACT someone even went to the trouble of making a comment over that post being bigoted in ATA! So please, explain the difference because I don't see it.

I can't speak to the GD post because I am not familiar with it. Nor can I say that the posters that complained about the post in GD would not be upset by Ebert's article. I can only speak for myself, and I can only speak about things that I have some familiarity with.

but come on, are you really going to tell me that a scientist of his calibur writings are not in reasonable adult tones? As I said, I don't agree with all his views, but he at least to me, makes some very logical points. As does Ebert. I'm not attacking you specifically but it seems to me that many here and elsewhere CANNOT accept ANY criticism of religion and go flying off the handle when any atheists dares to bring logic into a discussion....Are there atheists who are insensitive and angry? Of course there are, but I think as has been pointed out many times, that deists attacks on anyone who tries to critique religion in any sort is counter productive..especially on a liberal board IMO.
Read this MILDLY worded post and tell me WHY its been accused of being anti-Christian bigotry?
http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9303744

Clearly Dawkins is a recognized expert in the field of biology and is a respected author in that field. So, of course he makes logical points. And, Dawkins, like anyone else, is entitled to write about fields other than the field of his recognized expertise. But, when coming into a field in which you are not an expert, challenging the experts in the field, requires, at a minimum, that you are conversant with the issues. Dawkins gleefully mocks theology yet, based on all evidence, he is almost completely ignorant on the subject.

Ebert, who my guess is disagrees with most theologians, shows respect for their opinions. I doubt that's Ebert's article will bring down anything resembling the criticism that the writings of fundamentalist atheists have brought down. The tone of his article is at least partially responsible for its more general acceptance.

---

As to why people on DU criticized the post, again, you really have to speak to them. I can't speak for them. However, the post does unqualifiedly refer to religious wackos, and certainly people can take offence at that generality.

has yet to demonstrate that it is a legitimate field of inquiry, that one can be an "expert" in to begin with. That's Dawkins' point. Simply being familiar with what other "experts" in your "field" have written and thought in the past does not make you an expert too, when there is no real knowledge or understanding being accumulated. It just makes you another member of the crowd praising the wardrobe of the naked emperor.

One no more needs to be an "expert" in theology to be justified in mocking it, than one does in astrology or alchemy to be justified in mocking them.

western university system. If Dawkins thinks it requires his approval to be a legitimate field of study, then he suffers from delusions of grandeur.

What tenets of any theology can be independently and repeatedly verified by unbiased third parties?

What tenets of any theology have increased our knowledge of the cosmos, of the human body, or of various cultures?

Most important of all, what about theology makes you personally claim that it is and has been a legitimate field of study?

Both history and the current university system confer legitimacy on the study of theology.

You of course realize that when you make such sweeping claims I'm going to ask "how"? How does history, or the current university system, confer legitimacy on the study of theology?

is that legitimate universities have given the field credibility by building whole departments and degree programs on it.

Not that I agree...

Aside from seminaries, I can't think of any schools of the top of my head that offer degrees in theology.

I was quite surprised at how extensive this list is...

http://www.uscollegesearch.org/theology-colleges.html

As stated in post #38 and subsequent posts, large numbers of universities (not seminaries) confer degrees in theology. The recognition by these universities of theology as a legitimate subject makes Dawkins and his claims - claims about a subject in which he admits ignorance - silly.

Even you should be able to recognize such a claim as an argument from authority. I AM surprised at the number of universities offering such courses, but then universities offer courses on all sorts of strange subjects at times, so my shock there is unwarranted.

Your claim of theological legitimacy is, thus far, fallacious. Care to try again?

It's a universal recognition across the western world that theology is a legitimate field of study. And, yes, that certainly does confer legitimacy. And, no, I'm not going to get into one one of your - "does not", "does to" childish exchanges about it.

I see three on this thread alone. And BTW, don't get up on your huffy bike just because someone pointed out a fallacy in your argumentation.

You still haven't shown how theology gives us any verifiable knowledge that isn't covered in broader and deeper ways by history and science. You still haven't shown how theology is a legitimate field of study. At this point, I can only see that you have two choices:
1) Follow your predictable old pattern and bow out of this discussion with another lame attempt at ad hom (childish indeed).
2) Actually explain, without fallacy, why you consider theology a legitimate field of study. Several people here have asked you this in various ways, and you have yet to answer.

... of western society. And, yes people can disagree with established opinion; but they need a solid basis for doing so. Richard Dawkins admits to a general ignorance of theology, yet he claims it's not a legitimate field of study. His own admission of ignorance disqualifies his opinion.

The people here, on the board, who are claiming that theology is not a legitimate field of study have not demonstrated any command of the subject. There is no reason to expect that they are qualified to judge.

It's argumentum ad populum. Because a whole bunch of theologians exist who think their field is legitimate, it therefore is legitimate.

as philosophy, literature, music, mythology, or any other of the "soft" fields of enquiry. Nobody is claiming that it is a scientific field, but that is not the deciding factor as to whether it's a legitimate field.

I am not a theist by any means, but I can still acknowledge that some of the great thinkers in human history have been theologians of one sort or another. I can admire their thought without necessarily buying into it.

I do think that Ebert approaches this discussion in a more respectful way than Dawkins does and therefore is probably taken more seriously and gets his message accross more effectively.

1) Without getting into the usefulness of degrees in such topics, let's investigate this question: What has theology given us that isn't already more thoroughly covered in philosophy, mythology, and the occasional science class?
2) As for respect, read me.

what do we know now as a result of theological inquiry that we didn't know fifty years ago, or a hundred years ago? What objective knowledge and understanding has theological inquiry produced?

this subject comes up. Never had any of our resident apologists and theology-suckers even attempt an answer. Gee.

In Stephen Hawkings new book, The Grand Design", he assures us: There is no picture- or theory-independent concept of reality. So, if physics is not giving us new objective knowledge, should we drop it as a subject?

If you want to get a glimpse - just a glimpse - of new understandings of reality that have come from theology over the last 50 years, I'd recommend reading The Monstrosity of Christ. In that book Slavoj Zizek, an atheist, debates John Milbank, a Christian theologian about the implications of Christian theology. Yes, Zizek, the atheist, bases part of his understanding of the world on Christian theology.

You're asked to provide examples of the advancements in knowledge and understanding that theological inquiry has produced over the last century, and all you can do is cite one obscure book, from which you're unable to provide a single concrete example, and which concerns a debate and the perspective of two people? Is that the best that theology can do? I'll give you another chance to not look ridiculous. Give us a few examples of questions in theology that were unanswered a century ago, and which are now considered settled and not subject to reasonable dispute. When and how did they become settled?

And if you're interpreting Hawking to mean that the principles and laws of physics are primarily subjective rather than overwhelmingly objective, that's good for another belly laugh, but not much more. Does Hawkings think that the discoveries and principles of quantum mechanics (which have been repeated and verified countless times by scientists all over the world) are not objective? Or the principles of relativity? Or electromagnetism? Of course not. If physics weren't capable of providing new objective knowledge, you wouldn't be reading this...you do realize that, don't you?

can be a legitimate field of study.

Until the existence of a god, any god, is proved, how can anything legitimate be built upon it?

by some around here, which in turn explains much.

that none of the babbling religionistas and apologists here and elsewhere have ever been able to provide a coherent explanation, and it does indeed explain much.

Perhaps you'd care to enlighten everybody...

that implies a lack of specific knowledge or plain ignorance. Just because you do not understand something, or accept, or believe a certain premise does not mean that the premise is not well supported. Nor does it mean that the criteria used to support such a premise is insufficient or faulty. You do not understand because you only realize one type of reasoning, therefore you cannot understand any conviction or premise that is a product of another type of reasoning, or other types of reasoning (epistemologies). In short, when you talk about "coherent explanation(s)", it means that they are not coherent to you. Whether or not you agree is not the issue here. The issue is that not all people have such a narrow perspective, and, in fact, do understand that subjective, as well as objective views comprise the whole of reality.

Theology and science can very much co-exist and, in fact, do. I accept fully the Scientific Method and its associated methodology. However, it has its specific limitations, which are confined to physical, empirical existence. Therefore, speculation on anything else is impossible, when employing what can be termed as the 'logical positivist' mindset. Again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this scientific way of thinking, but it was specifically designed to ignore anything non-empirical. The modern SM is the product of positivism. Very useful for specific purposes, but exclusive in its application. If you wish to confine you view of reality to that line of thinking then that is your right; but whether you accept it or not, not all people accept such a perspective. And therein lies the fact that some have an "understanding" of things, while others have no such understanding.

NOM
NOM
NOM

M-theory is a small subset of inquiry based on current knowledge found in the fields of particle physics and quantum mechanics. Theology, as it stands today, is a large group of inquiries based on what is, as far as science can tell, mythology.

I really don't know a lot about it. From what I read, it is still in the hypothetical stage, but its foundations are deeply rooted in actual science, or built upon an already proven premise.

But back to theology, which is not built upon a proven premise...well, what I stated the first time.

I hope that answered your question.

So, does the same criteria apply to both?

But regardless of that, what does it have to do with theology and the original point?

Lets get back on topic and discuss that, ok?

... that hasn't proved its most basic premise can be a legitimate field of study. The original point seems to be that if the basic premise hasn't been proved, the field of study is not legitimate. So, M-Theory has, as its basic premise, a premise that is currently believed to be untestable (and so, unproveable). Given that this meets the same criteria that you want to use to test the legitimacy of theology, does your premise apply here? If it doesn't hold for M-Theory, can you specify why it holds for theology but not M-Theory?

It's easy to arbitrarily create criteria for something. But, if your criteria are not universal, or at least applicable across a specific set of boundaries, then your criteria is just an artifical barrier being set up for a specific purpose. IOW, the criteria establishes nothing.

What mathematical theorem can be used in theology?

The criteria raised there was proof of the basic premise. I have not seen any physicist claim that M-Theory has been proven (specifically, the existence of a high-dimensional p-brane that is the cause of our universe - specifying this since the theory has multiple versions and we should be discussing a definite idea). Of course, I am not in any way arguing against M-Theory, merely noting that the criteria raised to establish that theology is not a legitimate field of study is arbitrary and not consistently applied.

And, of course, there are a number of legitimate fields of study that don't have proven mathematical methods behind them. So, proven mathematical methods don't seem like a legitimate determinant of what is a legitimate field of study.

Christian theology has had 2000 years to demonstrate its basic premise beyond reasonable dispute, and it still ain't there. M-theory, string theory and a few others may end up being untestable dead ends, but here's guessing that their proponents won't take 2 millennia to see the light. They'll have to put up or go away long before that.

why it remains a theory. Mathematics and laws of physics can and have also been used attempting to validate theological truths, also, but like M-theory, theology is a subjective endeavor.

This is his standard M.O. When he starts losing on his original point, he desperately tries to change the subject. Eventually he just ignores you because your questions are too hard for him.

Regardless, you're really reaching here for a ridiculous apples-oranges comparison.

M-theory is a branch of theoretical physics. May pan out, may not. If it doesn't, it will be discarded in dustbin of "knowledge" along with the aether and Piltdown man. Can you say the same about theology? How can theology be falsified?

Your reactions are almost always predictable. That is how scientific inquiry is conducted. But sometimes there are surprises or exceptions.

He recognizes that Christian theology is based on reason, once its premise is accepted


Did you just state that once one accepts an irrational premise, everything else is reasonable?

Are you surprised? The swallowed flawed premise is the entire foundation of religion.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/04/how_i_believe_in_g.html

"Did I start calling myself an agnostic or an atheist? No, and I still don't. I avoid that because I don't want to provide a category for people to apply to me. I would not want my convictions reduced to a word."

of the rescue, so spoke about it with large language corresponding to their large feelings

That it was not some "act of god" as the word miracle implies, but the hard work of humans and humans alone?

The next day, I watched a hawk fly across the yard, inches from the ground. Yesterday, I noticed three camellias and wild rose in bloom. Today, under the oak, acorns fall like rain

These are miracles for me, and I am grateful for them

Last year, a girl I know was involved in what might have been a very serious automobile accident: she escaped with minor bruises. That also was a miracle for me, and I was grateful

We all choose at every moment how we will live in the world, and by our choices we also choose the world in which we live

Mining is hard and dangerous work: it is a miracle for me that strangers might have machines that could help in such disasters or might be willing to spend months trying to save the lives of others, and I am grateful for that

You and I sometimes use words differently and for different purposes. The choice of words does not necessarily seem interesting to me, and I do not see how an answer to your question could be informative

which is that religious language continues to pervade our everyday lives, and every time someone has the audacity to challenge that language they are told by many, in terse or verbose ways, to fuck off.

Believer privilege is alive and well, and just as problematic as white, male, or straight privilege.

I do sympathize: for as long as I can remember, I've also had the experience, of hearing things said that I disagree with; it happens frequently when I stand in checkout lines and it happens almost every time I turn on the radio or TV, and on the internet I very often read things that I don't agree with

I'm think I'll buy some earplugs for when I listen to the radio, and I'm really afraid I'll have to start surfing the web blindfolded

I'm sure 100 years ago many people felt exactly the same way about usage of such terms as "nigger" or "colored". The privileged often feel that those they step on should bear the boot in silence, and they tend to take incredible offense when they don't get that expected silence.

school on, I was red-baited and queer-baited and attacked as an atheist and called a n*****-lover. I was defending Madalyn Murray O'Hair when I was in fourth grade. By the time I got to high school, most of my fellow students thought I was Satan because I supported teaching evolution, said people had a perfect right to be gay, and thought Marx had made insight comments about capitalism. When I was a longhair, drunken jackasses regularly screamed faggot! and threw their glass beer bottles at me as they drove by. I've stood on picket lines while jackasses hurled stuff at us. I've never received an anonymous death threat myself, but I've belonged to small grassroots organizations in which people, who I knew well, did get anonymous death threats

I don't consider myself either a saint or a hero. I'm lucky to have survived some of the stupid things I've done. But I didn't like the frickin mob's Thought Police when I was younger, and I'm certainly not going to join any Thought Police now

And I don't have a double standard: I simply grew up. I long ago stopped trying to get political results from pointless linguistic or philosophical squabbles

If you want mandatory prayers out of the public schools, I'm with that. If you want creationism out of science classes, I'm with that. If you want "In G-d We Trust" off the coinage or "under G-d" out of the Pledge, I'm with that. If you don't want religious pressure applied to unwilling service members, I'm with that./ If you think the White House shouldn't have an "Office of Faith-Based Initiatives," I'm with that

But when you want a long pointless discussion about whether people can gush "It's a miracle!" when a loved one unexpectedly survives, I'm off for other parts and don't much care whether the door hits my backside

1) "Get a frickin grip" preceding a tirade like that one is hilariously ironic.
2) You do care, or you wouldn't spend such effort apologizing for the people who gush "it's a miracle".
3) I don't want a "long pointless discussion" about language, I simply want privileged assholes to understand that others have the right to be insulted at their choice of language.

If they had suddenly appeared on the surface, without having to be brought up one by one through the tunnel that was dug by humans.

Otherwise, it's just being in the right/wrong place at the right/wrong time and mining engineering at work.

I did. Good ol' KKLA-FM here in Los Angeles. Which, as I often note, really just needs one more "K" in its call sign.

On the day of the rescue, the drive-time program was whooping and hollering about this "miracle." Not ONCE did it mention the heroic human component, or the human-designed machines, or anything else human-related. It was all Gawd, all miracle, all the time.

As your post said: listening to this crap, you would have thought the miners just miraculously appeared on the surface. Probably along with a rainbow and a talking dove.

BTW, hilariously, the drive-time show is called..."The Intersection of Faith and Reason." Hosted by a tool named Frank Pastore, who used to be a pro baseball pitcher.

Pastore claims - endlessly - that he was "an atheist for 27 years." I seriously doubt that. From his ranting, it seems more like he just didn't think much about religion for 27 years.

For one thing, he says he was converted by apologetics - he especially thanks C.S. Lewis and Josh MacDowell for bringing him to Jebus. All the "atheists" I ever heard bragging about those two seem to have already been inclined toward Xianity, and just wanted some "proof" that it was the One True Religion. And I hear a LOT of them on this radio station.

what is even more befuddling is the idea of an atheist being a regular listener of Christian radio. I really have to question who looks more like the three K's you speak of.

Why can't Christian radio acknowledge the human effort and engineering ability that made that all possible?

So atheists are like the Klan, now? This is getting weird. I was told to go burn a cross in GD because I asked someone for their reasons why the U. of Minn study was flawed and now you are throwing out a Klan ad hom. Nice. (and before you go off that someone else threw out the Klan ad hom first, let me remind you that he was talking about a conservative Christian radio station and that the Klan does indeed represent the very extreme conservative end of Christianity).

as for the Klan remark, it was in response to the statement that a 3rd K should be added to the radio call letters. But yes, much of the display put out by radical atheists and atheist groups is quite reminiscent of the openly denigrating remarks made by klan members. A comparison to militant atheist groups of the past would probably be more appropriate however. But then they were both self admitted hate groups, so take your pick.

Here is what onager said:


In response to that, you wrote:


Then, because of that exchange, I asked:

I realize a logical, linear argument often is a task for you, but it pretty much flows straight through.

If you were not connecting atheism and science in your mind, do tell exactly what you were thinking and how your post is in anyway a response to onager if not trying to make that connection.

So rather than construct these big scary strawmen, how about you show me some comments from the nasty old atheists that are anywhere near to the rhetoric of the right-wing of Christianity that we know as the KKK.

And one other tidbit. You said

Please show me where in onager's post he even comes close to saying he is "a regular listener of Christian radio." If you can't, I would imagine you should apologize for your false witness (I mean ad hom).

likely he listens often - "Pastore claims - endlessly - that he was "an atheist for 27 years." I seriously doubt that. From his ranting, it seems more like he just didn't think much about religion for 27 years."

As far as your comments about the KKK analogy - I did not initiate that, But a statement that immediately comes to mind is Hitchen admonition to his groupies to show "ridicule, hatred, and contempt..." for religion. And the entire history of radical militant atheism is much broader in scope and more violence than any KKK history. And that is saying a lot.

thing that you had your panties in a wad about?

where it stops.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=263321&mesg_id=263677

Ignoring the argument doesn't make it go away.

the content of the post.

He never says he wants atheism extolled. He says they didn't once talk about the human factor in this. You, from that, say that they never extolled atheism. What does that mean, then? I've asked for an explanation before.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Post 92. I said:
"If you were not connecting atheism and science in your mind, do tell exactly what you were thinking and how your post is in anyway a response to onager if not trying to make that connection."

I did ask. Not sure why you have ignored it and then tossed out the dementia ad hom without checking first. Well, I pretty much know why you did that, but I don't want my post deleted for saying it.

"Will you please explain yourself?" I have already told you what I responded to. I'm really don't like to repeat myself. Good day.

I said I asked for your explanation of what you meant. Post 92 clearly does that.

You don't like to repeat yourself? I guess saying nothing or making a non-sequitur might feel like repeating yourself, but I have been saying the same thing (and I mean literally the same thing in that I have been copying an pasting prior posts) with no response from you other than "where have you said that" over and over. Just admit you don't want to answer the question and move on, but stop faining being obtuse and acting like you don't know what the words I'm using mean.

I honestly don't know some of the words you're using nor where you are getting them. Now, i am going to assume that you mean 'FEIGNING' instead of 'fain'(ing), which is a totally different word. Learn how to speak clearly and properly or be silent. And I have already answered your question as far as I am concerned. And what is this?: "I don't believe I ever said I asked a questions." Um. You have been asking for a explanation according to your statemnts.

If you don't know the difference then that might explain why you think you've actually answered a question. Now learn how to debate properly or be silent.

1. You don't have the needed preposition in the second half of your first sentence.
2. Capitalize the pronoun "I" please.
3. There is no grammatical purpose to the comma after "'fain'(ing)" in the second sentence.
4. You need to have a comma before the second coordinating conjunction in the third sentence as there is a complete sentence on each side (each sentence with an understood subject, of course).
5. Starting a sentence with a coordinating conjunction, tsk, tsk.
6. And then not putting a comma after that introductory coordinating conjunction? For shame.
7. The question mark/colon is just wrong. The question mark in that instance would go after the quotation not before it.
8. "Um" would be an interjection and therefore there would be no period after it but rather a comma.
9. Since "explanation" starts with a vowel sound, we would use the article "an" and not "a" before it.
10. "statemnts"? Wow, what a shameful typographic error for one being such an insufferable ass about language use to make while making fun of someone else.

Seriously, is that what you want to do, because I can do this shit all day. I am going to guess I know more rules than you, too. Yes, I typed the wrong word. Just relaxing during my prep period and posted something quickly with thinking (and admittedly I am not the world's greatest speller). But hey, let me know if you want to continue playing grammar Nazi, because I'm good at that.

On to the real point at hand. I have invited you to explain yourself. The fact that you want to get into a semantic quibble over the word "ask" rather than just explain yourself speaks volumes.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

before it got deleted.

If someone saw it, could you PM me, please.

know what you found so offensive.

was in the GD miner thread. Really. I get done with school at 2:45 and then go to the Y to workout. Don't get home until 5 and then I cook. Don't believe me if you want, but I'm not an alerter, generally.

Plus you know me better than that. I would make some reference to what you said in my response so that the basic point of what you said that got the post deleted would linger on. I'm clearly not doing that.

Was wondering how long it would take you to get that in. Nice job. You do not disappoint!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Every post just confirms that if there is a god, you ain't got it right.

I think a little levity is always in order and I do think you over-reacted. What I said was nothing out of the ordinary here or do those rules omly apply to some? This is clearly evidence that the rules only apply to some. Many of the atheists here do seem to be heavy on censorship, at least as it applies to others. In particular, militant atheists like yourself. OOps! did it again.

Rationalize all you want.




militant atheist. It still makes me chuckle.

reaction, reply, or defense is to notify the moderator whenever your opinions are challenged. Very shallow.

but here in reality, things are a bit different. But thats okay, you can be as willfully ignorant as you want to be. You can be as self-deluded as you can handle. Its the American way!


Hehehe. Militant Atheist.

But then again, who cares what I think, right? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x262348#262382

Sorry, I missed it. What was your point again? Oh yeah, who cares what I think....http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x262348#262382

Militant atheist :rofl:Militant atheist :rofl: Militant atheist :rofl:Militant atheist :rofl: Militant atheist :rofl:Militant atheist :rofl: Militant atheist :rofl:Militant atheist :rofl:Militant atheist :rofl:Militant atheist :rofl: Militant atheist :rofl:Militant atheist :rofl: Militant atheist :rofl:Militant atheist :rofl: Militant atheist :rofl:Militant atheist :rofl:Militant atheist :rofl:Militant atheist :rofl: Militant atheist :rofl:Militant atheist :rofl: Militant atheist :rofl:Militant atheist :rofl: Militant atheist :rofl:Militant atheist :rofl:Militant atheist :rofl:Militant atheist :rofl: Militant atheist :rofl:Militant atheist :rofl: Militant atheist :rofl:Militant atheist :rofl: Militant atheist :rofl:Militant atheist :rofl:

Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:Militant Atheist :rofl:

militant atheist nazis :rofl:militant atheist nazis :rofl:militant atheist nazis :rofl:militant atheist nazis :rofl:militant atheist nazis :rofl:militant atheist nazis :rofl:militant atheist nazis :rofl:militant atheist nazis :rofl:militant atheist nazis :rofl:militant atheist nazis :rofl:militant atheist nazis :rofl:militant atheist nazis :rofl:militant atheist nazis :rofl:militant atheist nazis :rofl:militant atheist nazis :rofl:militant atheist nazis :rofl:militant atheist nazis :rofl:militant atheist nazis :rofl:militant atheist nazis :rofl:militant atheist nazis :rofl:

I said they didn't mention anything about the human part of the rescue. That omission was fairly startling and really stood out.

I don't expect them to extol the virtues of atheism, any more than I expect you (stumblebum) to ever tell the truth.

"Regular listener?" Not really, just a sometime listener. I believe in knowing your enemy. Just like that famous right-wing Xian, Sun Tzu.

Besides, that station is an endless source of unintentional amusement.

e.g., President Obama was in Los Angeles yesterday and spoke at the University of Southern California, among other places.

Pastore, the KKLA host, just KEPT ON ranting about how university students didn't work and were only in college because "Mom and Dad are paying their tuition. Mom and Dad have given them everything. They've never had to work for a living..." bla-bla-bla.

Now if you regularly read my posts, stumblebum - and I KNOW you do, just to leave your John Bircher droppings on them - you may have noticed an item I posted a few days ago. The Crystal Cathedral is going bankrupt. Largely because Bob Schuller turned it over to his son, who ran it into the ground.

The sons of Oral Roberts, Jerry Falwell, Herbert Armstrong, etc. etc. also grew up in luxury, then went to work for Dad. (And in the case of Roberts and Garner Ted Armstrong, also ran the businesses into the ground, usually amid juicy sex-and-money scandals.)

So it sounds like lib'rul USC students aren't the only ones living off Mom and Dad.

:rofl:

And to GM - thanks.

"Good ol' KKLA-FM here in Los Angeles. Which, as I OFTEN note, really just needs one more "K" in its call sign."

"Good ol' KKLA-FM here in Los Angeles. Which, as I OFTEN note, really just needs one more "K" in its call sign."

That means I OFTEN make that joke about the radio station. Not that I OFTEN listen to it.

You're not very good at this whole "reading comprehension" thing, are you?