Considering I've never met a single a theist who use drugs, corrupts children, or half the rest of what you've accused the atheist community of, and being one I've met a lot of atheists int he several societies I've been a part of, I call your claim baseless assertions stemming from willful smear-campaigning until you can provide some evidence to the contrary.
Your various accomplishments as spelled out here by you, whilst impressive on their own, don't lend any credence to this ad hominem nonsense you've plastered the atheist community with.
Condescending: Proscribing your moral model upon us as though infallible, and not considering that perhaps it might be wrong.
High-horsed: Considering yourself above things that you've accused the atheist community of, whilst you follow a religion that is one of the most demonstrably vile, inhumane dogmas the human race has ever constructed
Sanctimonious: See "condescending".
Strawman: Constructing this false impression of the atheist community to attack as opposed to the actual community itself.
It reminds me forcibly of the argument against bisexuality, when opponents point at the fake bisexual people who're really just nymphomaniacs as opposed to actual bisexual people, and claim that all bisexuals are whores based on their actions.
So I ask you to provide evidence in favour of these accusations that the atheist community is really the dreggs of society you seem to be under the impression we are. Otherwise it's an unfounded insult, and if it's going to descend into that, then christians will hardly come off looking quite so divine either.
Your various accomplishments as spelled out here by you, whilst impressive on their own, don't lend any credence to this ad hominem nonsense you've plastered the atheist community with.
Quote:condescending - I am never condescending to people in real life, unless I feel it is merited. I think it is worth being condescending to atheists that use the internet and the allure of sex and freedom and false arguments to ensnare young people. This is a fact that this happens.
close-minded - I am not close minded. Politically I have been a radical for much of my life and I still am to some degree. I majored in philosophy in college and have studied many atheist books. I try to understand the truth whether it agrees with my theology or not, and try and reconcile them afterwards. I think you would find me to be a very likeable fellow in real life.
high-horsed - I am not high horsed, but I do consider myself to be better than those who try to lead young people into nihilism by using sex and drugs. This is a substantial portion of the atheist community (not all).
sanctimonious - I am a sinner like everyone else.
strawmen - Where do you see a strawman?
Condescending: Proscribing your moral model upon us as though infallible, and not considering that perhaps it might be wrong.
High-horsed: Considering yourself above things that you've accused the atheist community of, whilst you follow a religion that is one of the most demonstrably vile, inhumane dogmas the human race has ever constructed
Sanctimonious: See "condescending".
Strawman: Constructing this false impression of the atheist community to attack as opposed to the actual community itself.
It reminds me forcibly of the argument against bisexuality, when opponents point at the fake bisexual people who're really just nymphomaniacs as opposed to actual bisexual people, and claim that all bisexuals are whores based on their actions.
So I ask you to provide evidence in favour of these accusations that the atheist community is really the dreggs of society you seem to be under the impression we are. Otherwise it's an unfounded insult, and if it's going to descend into that, then christians will hardly come off looking quite so divine either.
If you believe it, question it. If you question it, get an answer. If you have an answer, does that answer satisfy reality? Does it satisfy you? Probably not. For no one else will agree with you, not really.
