There's so much contempt in that comment I can't even begin to sort through the insults you hoped to levy upon atheists and Christians alike.You mean the tree in the living room? The commercialism? The jolly old fat guy in a red suit coming down the chimney? The candy canes? The wreaths? The egg nog? The socks on the mantle? Uncle Jack getting drunk and ruining everything? That Christian celebration?
I think atheists can probably sort through that.
That's true. Because I know atheists when I meet them.True, you don't really know me.
Does that actually satisfy you?To think people are shut-in's because they call out a poser when they read one?Maybe you need to get out more?
Seems only logical when those claiming to be atheists are so ready to tell the religious that atheism isn't a belief.
Really? What else is it exactly? When Christ's mass is precisely so and has been for generations.
What else is it in matters of what the atheist believes about Christ's mass?
Not really.
And if you're going to claim you're an atheist you should change your identity of "Humanist" on your profile.
That's true. Because I know atheists when I meet them.
Does that actually satisfy you?To think people are shut-in's because they call out a poser when they read one?
I get now what the bhsmte means.
Ta!
To think people are shut-in's because they call out a poser when they read one?
There's so much contempt in that comment I can't even begin to sort through the insults you hoped to levy upon atheists and Christians alike.
Or is it your family you're talking about on that December morn?
You appear not to realize when SCOTUS delivered the opinion that a nativity creche does not violate the establishment clause in Lynch v. Donnelly in 1989 , that that means the atheist can't try to force a government office to remove the nativity creche that they may have displayed on government property. Because the court ruled it does not violate the establishment clause.
The anti-religious atheist hopes apparently to lead people to believe SCOTUS means nothing at all to the United States laws. That the nine justices you attempted to insult are just delivering opinions that mean nothing at all in matters of how the law reads or is applied after they've opined.
I understand what the court ruled . I also understand what they ruled in Dred Scott. They were wrong in both cases. Court rulings are opinions and often mistaken ones and often revisited and corrected. After 31 years this one needs revisiting and revising. I am no atheist As a Christian, I believe that we ought to give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's. I did not attempt to insult the justices I pointed out the fact that they are just as human as the rest of us and perhaps more politically motivated than the founders intended when they invented the Supreme Court and made the job permanent and not subject to popular vote. I refuse to deify them. I am a Christian and my God is a monotheistic one, not 9 pagan deities residing in some Washingtonian Olympus wearing black robes.
Time with family. Gift giving. Santa. All that non-Jesus jazz.
Yet you believe what you believe about my beliefs must be true.
Skipping the rest of that post because it's irrelevant.
Why? Humanism doesn't require belief in a supreme being.
For the record, I could also pick apatheist, if it were offered.
Aw man. I wanted to get to be Uncle Jack!
Yes, I think you've made your motives for being here very clear. And no surprise all those who have your same attitude approve.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?