Seriously? Its OK with me if you want to think atheism is a religion.

Thanks.

I was responding to a poster who wondered why L**T families adopt babies from foreign countries or use artificial insemination or surrogates to increase their families instead of using their resources to care for older American children who need families. I thought you responded that adoption by an L**T family was preferable for the baby of "a girl Christian or no who fell for some BS..." to being aborted. I understand now that that was not your intent, but it seemed to me that the personal responsibility option was not a choice that you approved for either Christian OR no, so I wondered if there was some need (such as shame or impression management) to ignore this option. I believe I corrected my post to say, "SOME Christians and SOME L**T families." So no, I did not mean all Christians. I misunderstood your intent.

It is surprising that so many people don't realize that saying they are sorry that I don't know their Jesus, who died for my sins too, praying that I will come to know the Lord, assuming my anger is at the religion instead of the abuse, and denying the t***h of abuses, ARE attempts to convert!?!

While I don't believe in gods, I do defend the t***h I do know. A fallacious argument does not prove an assertion. Nor does it disprove it. The onus of proof is on the person making the claim. If you don't assert and logically defend your argument, don't expect me to believe it. And don't ask me to disprove it. I have just as much reason and right to disbelieve Yahweh, as you do to disbelieve Thor or Zeus or any of the hundreds of other deities mankind has invented. You think your god is the only true GOD, AND THERE ARE NO OTHERS, I just go one more step than you and disbelieve in yours, too.

Antitheist.

I was responding to your neglecting to mention, in addition to a******n and adoption, the option of TAKING PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. If the rule about fornication being punished by death by stoning has been rescinded, and the god is loving and forgiving and the rest of the Christians follow the god, why does the baby need to go away?

I was responding to your neglecting to mention, in addition to a******n and adoption, the option of TAKING PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. If the rule about fornication being punished by death by stoning has been rescinded, and the god is loving and forgiving and the rest of the Christians follow the god, why does the baby need to go away?

:oops:
Personal attacks are the refuge of small minds when their logic and thinking are inadequate to refute another. Students of formal logic call it the Ad Hominem argument. It is always fallacious.

Basically, the the attacker says, as one of my children once claimed, " You may be right but I'm a VERY loving person and you are a snotty b****!

Dear Jacky,
You are incorrect, I fear. Look it up in your 4 th grade history book! The United States of America is a Constitutional Democracy. It is IN NO WAY a Theocracy except in the mistaken fantasies of religs.

Having looked at your argument again, I fear it is flawed.

Mammals have hair but it does not cover every part of every mammal. There are BALD HUMANS who remain mammals. If a monkey is bald but still has hair on other parts of the body he still has hair; he is still a mammal and still a monkey. Shoot, hairless dogs are still mammals. But they are not monkeys.
Since this argument is flawed, your conclusion cannot be proven by it.

I don't see how monkeys have to be invoked at all. Just seems to confuse the issue.

Dinner downed. Yum. Hi! She's baaaack!

Sorry, if I were closed minded I would just say, "EFF it, this is stoopid!"

What I actually said was that I don't understand it. So it possibly could be ME that is stoopid (from hunger.) And that I would come back to it for another try.

You seem to take offence where none is intended and intend offence where none is warranted.

Or bald monkeys have no hair? Do you know the word conflation? You may be making some kind of sense to yourself but I can't follow. Probably because its 5pm and I still haven't had lunch! I will look at this again another time, or perhaps we can start a religious rights for gay bald monkeys thread! Sorry, for the irreverence, but I am an Atheist. Probably an Antitheist of sorts as well. Ttfn.

I really was leaving but this caught my eye...

So the relig's are the ones who are supposed to take care of the 'older children' who need homes, not the L**T? WHEW!!!

Sticky fingers again. Parkinson's Disease must be a b**** for typing! I must now leave for dinner. Been nice meeting you. And recognizing others I've met here recently. I'm sure we will chat again sometime.

Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as an actual fatherless child. Nor are there motherless children. There are parents who for some reason (death, etc.)are no longer caring for the child they brought into the world. It is illogical and bizarre to suggest that the L**T community, must produce no biological children of their own, until they fully accomplish the duty to care for all other children whose parents cannot. In fact, religious and other predjudices work against allowing L**T persons to adopt children. This is a major reason many look to other methods to increase their families.

I don't speak for all atheists or know what every one of them believes. I am presenting the meaning of the word. But I suppose it would make logical sense for someone who doesn't believe gods exist to not believe in any god's ability to create the cosmos. But the capacity of humans to hold irreconcilable beliefs is well known, so who knows?