Raw Story under fire for attack on "atheist whackjobs"

Not necessarily to me. I understand the whole "not believing what I can't see" angle, because I understand humans. I don't like virulence though.

 

Virulence is a characteristic of many, and in no associated soley with athiesm. The religious can be the same way, just walk down Free Speech Alley. :hihi:

I think most here are understanding of athiesm (probably in large part due to martin's ability to make his points), but many aren't.

 

hey man, they want you to get saved. martin wants you to realize there's nothing after death. big difference!

those points apply more to judaism than anything else.

 

Thanks for clearing that up. All this time, I've been under the assumption you'd no longer respond to me because the few times you have engaged me in discussion, I've made you look like the complete ass that you are.

 

You're also quite delusional.

 

And you've obviously stopped taking your meds again. How many times have I warned you about that?

 

Rex's threads always end up the same way: the author is discredited rather than the content refuted. Interesting pattern.

 

Both can't be simultaneously true. If 'extreme leftism' is so hard to refute, then why is it so easy to find example of such failed philosophies in history books?

(Note: I am not defending extreme leftism or rightism, only illustrating a point)

 

i think the first part was facetious. he didnt literally mean that leftism is hard to refute.