Yep, made it through. Unsurprisingly, it’s nonsense. The trusty ole stuff about atheism being a religion, the supreme court says so. Worshipping nature, and Darwin her “profit”(sic). Evolution is a theory, our acceptance as fact is a leap of faith. We are trying to get the religion of the ACLU to become the dominant one. Complete rubbish.
'Tis Himself, OMsays
Let me know if you manage to make it all the way through. I couldn’t.
I couldn’t either.
Someone should explain to Joepaulmanna that (1) paragraphs are your friends and (b) if you make something difficult to read, people won’t read it.
Cuttlefishsays
TV200–I don’t know whether to praise you for your perseverance, or admonishing you for drinking the full glass after the first sip told you it was sour!
My eyes started glazing over, and one part (should have been paragraph) slid into another, and back. So I started just sampling bits instead. I almost want to respond to the poor guy, to show him (for instance) what the ACLU has done for christians, but it’s such a reader-hostile wall of text that I can’t bring myself to reward him for it.
otramesays
Is it wrong of me to insist that people who don’t know how to use an apostrophe will have to work 10 times as hard to convince me of anything at all? I’m not even going to discuss “profit” (well, yes, I am. Did this person ever actually read anything at all about, you know, prophets?)
In short, meh.
penasquitosays
“They self righteously say others are self-righteousness and evil, exposing the hypocritical nature of themselves of in the process by being self-righteous towards others.”
Wow. That is just…
Wow.
How can you argue with that?
TV200says
Ha, I just used it to kill that time waiting for the kitchen floor to dry, and making breakfast. I did have to do it in two stages though. The stupid was too much for one.
I once did drink a bottle of Malort, so maybe there is an element of glutton for punishment.
Is it just my old age, or does a single skinny column of small print make you want to rip out your eyeballs and step on them? Argh!
Anyway, maybe I’ll get real close to my monitor and squint at it later.
Buffysays
I tried but I couldn’t get through it. Not only is he profoundly ignorant and arrogant, but he has no grasp of basic grammar (“atheist’s” as a noun, repeatedly) or paragraph breaks.
carpentermansays
“By rights he should be taken out and hung
For the cold-blooded murder of the English tongue.”
Now I have to go lie down. Too much stupid. My brain hurts.
Yes, I know I just used ‘stupid’ as a noun. I don’t care. Stupid this big takes on a horrible life of it’s own, like the monster in a B horror movie from the 1950s. I’m going to bed now. I’m leaving the lights on.
Any idea where the “Supreme Court had to define atheism as a religon” thing comes from? I’ve not heard that one before.
Margaretsays
Any idea where the “Supreme Court had to define atheism as a religon” thing comes from?
I think I heard about something like that in terms of some kind of law against religious discrimination being taken to prohibit discrimination against no-religion just like it prohibits discrimination against any particular religion. In other words, no-religion is defined as a religion in terms of its status under the law. Sorry for the fuzzy memory and lack of citation. I would be interested in details or corrections on this.
Yep, made it through. Unsurprisingly, it’s nonsense. The trusty ole stuff about atheism being a religion, the supreme court says so. Worshipping nature, and Darwin her “profit”(sic). Evolution is a theory, our acceptance as fact is a leap of faith. We are trying to get the religion of the ACLU to become the dominant one. Complete rubbish.
I couldn’t either.
Someone should explain to Joepaulmanna that (1) paragraphs are your friends and (b) if you make something difficult to read, people won’t read it.
TV200–I don’t know whether to praise you for your perseverance, or admonishing you for drinking the full glass after the first sip told you it was sour!
My eyes started glazing over, and one part (should have been paragraph) slid into another, and back. So I started just sampling bits instead. I almost want to respond to the poor guy, to show him (for instance) what the ACLU has done for christians, but it’s such a reader-hostile wall of text that I can’t bring myself to reward him for it.
Is it wrong of me to insist that people who don’t know how to use an apostrophe will have to work 10 times as hard to convince me of anything at all? I’m not even going to discuss “profit” (well, yes, I am. Did this person ever actually read anything at all about, you know, prophets?)
In short, meh.
“They self righteously say others are self-righteousness and evil, exposing the hypocritical nature of themselves of in the process by being self-righteous towards others.”
Wow. That is just…
Wow.
How can you argue with that?
Ha, I just used it to kill that time waiting for the kitchen floor to dry, and making breakfast. I did have to do it in two stages though. The stupid was too much for one.
I once did drink a bottle of Malort, so maybe there is an element of glutton for punishment.
Is it just my old age, or does a single skinny column of small print make you want to rip out your eyeballs and step on them? Argh!
Anyway, maybe I’ll get real close to my monitor and squint at it later.
I tried but I couldn’t get through it. Not only is he profoundly ignorant and arrogant, but he has no grasp of basic grammar (“atheist’s” as a noun, repeatedly) or paragraph breaks.
“By rights he should be taken out and hung
For the cold-blooded murder of the English tongue.”
Now I have to go lie down. Too much stupid. My brain hurts.
Yes, I know I just used ‘stupid’ as a noun. I don’t care. Stupid this big takes on a horrible life of it’s own, like the monster in a B horror movie from the 1950s. I’m going to bed now. I’m leaving the lights on.
I couldn’t make it through either.
Any idea where the “Supreme Court had to define atheism as a religon” thing comes from? I’ve not heard that one before.
I think I heard about something like that in terms of some kind of law against religious discrimination being taken to prohibit discrimination against no-religion just like it prohibits discrimination against any particular religion. In other words, no-religion is defined as a religion in terms of its status under the law. Sorry for the fuzzy memory and lack of citation. I would be interested in details or corrections on this.
Gah! I tried, I really did.
*twitch*